The  Police  Control  of  the  Slave 
in  South  Carolina 


BY 
H.  KL  HENRY,  M.  A, 


EXCHANGE 


The  Police  Control  of  the  Slave 
in  South  Carolina 

A  DISSERTATION  SUBMITTED   TO  THE  FACULTY  OF 

VANDERBILT  UNIVERSITY  IN  PARTIAL 

FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR 

OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 
H.  M.  HENRY,  M.  A. 

Professor  of  History  and  Economics 
Emory  and  Henry  College 


EMORY,  VIRGINIA 
1914 


COPYRIGHT  1914 
BY  H.   M.    HENRY 


PREFACE 

IN  THE  FALL  of  1909  the  late  Professor  Frederick 
W.  Moore  suggested  to  me  as  a  topic  for  investiga 
tion,  the  police  control  of  the  negro  in  the  period  of 
1861-1865  and  following  years.  It  was  his  suggestion  that 
by  using  several  states  as  illustrations  I  should  show  to  what 
extent  the  Southern  people  sought  to  perpetuate  not 
slavery,  but  the  same  method  of  controlling  the  emanci 
pated  negro  which  was  in  force  under  the  slavery  regime, 
the  difficulties  which  were  met  with  from  without  and  the 
measure  of  success  attained.  The  first  question  arising 
was:  what  was  that  method?  It  was  soon  evident  that 
the  laws  on  the  statute  books  did  not  adequately  answer 
the  question.  To  get  a  clear  understanding  of  that  system 
another  question,  or  two  other  questions,  had  to  be  answered : 
to  what  extent  were  these  laws  enforced;  and,  what  extra 
legal  method  may  have  been  resorted  to  in  a  system  so 
flexible  as  slavery  was?  These  questions  caused  the  mono 
graph  to  assume  large  proportions;  for  in  only  a  few  of 
the  states  has  the  history  of  slavery  been  written.  Be 
ginning  in  South  Carolina,  my  native  state,  I  soon  became 
attracted  by  the  possibilities  of  a  study  of  the  institution 
of  slavery  from  this  point  of  view  of  slave  control  in  one  of 
the  oldest  communities.  Hence  in  order  to  bring  this 
within  the  compass  of  a  doctoral  dissertation,  at  the  later 
suggestion  of  Professor  Sioussat,  I  limited  the  study  to 
one  state  and  to  a  study  of  the  ante-bellum  period,  at 
tempting,  as  far  as  possible,  to  show  to  what  extent  the 
laws  were  enforced.  It  is  my  hope,  at  some  later  time,  to 
be  able,  with  this  study  as  a  basis,  to  answer  the  original 
question  as  it  affects  South  Carolina. 

It  affords  me  pleasure  to  acknowledge  assistance  in  the 
way  of  helpful  suggestions  and  criticism  from  Professors 
Sioussat,  Dyer  and  Mims  of  the  Vanderbilt  Faculty; 
Professor  U.  B.  Phillips,  of  the  University  of  Michigan, 
and  T.  D.  Jervey,  Esq.,  of  Charleston.  To  Miss  Fitz- 

330518 


iv  Preface    , 

simmons  and  her  assistants  at  the  Charleston  Library; 
Miss  Webber,  of  the  South  Carolina  Historical  Society; 
A.  S.  Salley,  Jr.,  of  the  South  Carolina  Historical  Commis 
sion;  Miss  Rion,  of  the  South  Carolina  University  Library; 
and  the  County  Clerks  of  Court  of  several  counties  in  the 
State,  I  am  indebted  for  assistance  in  collecting  materials. 
To  these  and  others  who  have  lent  me  aid  I  wish  to  take 
this  opportunity  of  expressing  my  appreciation. 

H.  M.  HENRY. 

Vanderbilt   University 

Nashville,  Tenn.,  April  1,  1913. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 


-s. 

lO 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTORY  SKETCH 

Page 

1.  Physiographic  Conditions  in  the  State  ....................        1 

2.  Summary  of  Settlement  and  Development,  1670-1860  ......        1 

3.  Crops  Grown  —  Cotton  as  a  Staple  .......................       2 

4.  Statistical  Review  of  Slavery  Before  1860  ................       3 

5.  Influence  of    Barbadian    Slave  Code    upon    South    Carolina 

Slave  Code  .........................................       4 

6.  Relation  of  Slave  System  of  South  Carolina  to  other  Slave 

Systems  ............................................       4 

7.  Evolution  of  the  Idea  of  Slave   Control  from  that  of  the 

White  Indented  Servant  .............................       5 

8.  Development  of  the  Plan  of  Control;  Codes  of  1712  and  1740      6 

CHAPTER  II 

LEGAL  STATUS  OF  THE  SLAVE 

1.  Interpretation  by  the  Courts  of  the  Slave  Code  ...........  6 

2.  Expediency  of  Enforcing  Slave  Laws  —  Phillips'  Idea  ........        7 

3.  "Slaves"  Defined  —  Testing  of  Freedom  ...................  7 

4.  Legal  Determination  of  Color  in  the  Case  of  Mulattoes.  ...  8 

Roman  Law  Applies  to  Carolina  Slaves  ..................  10 

Slaves  and  the  Common  Law  ...........................  11 

7.  Conservative  Character  of  the  Code  .....................  11 

8.  The  Slave  as  a  Member  of  the  Family  ...................  12  \/ 

Crimes  of  Slaves  Committed  by  Order  of  the  Master  ......  14 

No  Legal  Standing  for  the  Slave  in  the  Courts  ............  15  \/ 

Negroes    as    Witnesses     in    Court;    Reward     for    Evidence 

Given  by  Negroes  ..................................  15 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  OVERSEER 

1.  The   Requirement  to   Keep  a  White   Person  on  the   Plan 

tation  ..............................................  18 

2.  The  Position  of  the  Overseer  ............................  21V 

3.  Extracts  from  Contemporary  Sources  Relative  to  Overseers.  .  23 
5.     Negro  Drivers  .........................................  26  v 


vi  Table  oj  Contents 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  PATROL  SYSTEM 

•; 

1.  Conditions  Making  a  Patrol  Necessary 28 

2.  The  Written  "Pass"  or  "Ticket" 29 

3.  Evolution  of  the  Patrol  System 31 

4.  The  Patrol  and  its  Regulation 31 

5.  The  Patrol  Law  of  1740 34 

6.  Enforcement  of  Patrol  Duty  Until  1819 35 

7.  Patrol  Law  of  1819 36 

8.  Enforcement  of  the  Later  Law 38 

9.  The  Patrol  in  the  Cities  and  Towns 42 

10.  Conditions  in  Charleston  and  the  Patrol  There 44 

11.  The  Charleston  Work  House 46 

12.  Minor  Police  Ordinances  in  Charleston 48 

13.  Reports  of   Mayors   on   the    Policing   of   the   Negroes   in 

Charleston 49 

14.  Policing  of  Charleston  Neck 50 

CHAPTER  V 

PUNISHMENT  OF  SLAVES 

*•*•!.     Whipping  as  a  Punishment  for  Slaves 52^* 

2.  Plantation  Management 53 

w,  3.     Examples   of  Punishment 53v 

~~r4.     Transportation  as  Punishment 55 v 

1 — 5.     Offenses  Capital  when  Committed  by  a  Negro 56 

6.     Payment  by  the  State  for  the  Value  of  the  Slave 57 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE  COURT  FOR  THE  TRIAL  OF  SLAVES 

"»-»l.     The  Organization  of  the  Court 58 

•-»  2.     Criticisms  of  the  Court 59 

-  3.     Summary  of  the  Evils  of  this  Method  of  Trial 60 

*"**-  4.     Two  Illustrations  of  a  Slave  Court 61 

""  5.     Remedies  Suggested 63 

^  6.     Modifications  of  the  Court 63 

CHAPTER  VII 

RELATION  BETWEEN  NEGROES  AND  WHITES 

"^-  1.     Laws  to  Protect  Slaves  from  Cruelty 66 

~"  2.     Agitation  for  a  Change  of  the  Law  on  the  Murder  of  Negroes.  67 

3.  Penalty  Under  the  Law  of  1821  and  the  Interpretation  by  the 

Court..  68 


Table  of  Contents  vii 

4.  Enforcement  of  the  Law  Against  Slave  Murder  ............  69 

5.  Cruelty  to  Slaves,  the  Law  and  its  Enforcement  ..........  75 

6.  Conditions  Connected  with  Cruelty  to  Slaves  ............. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

TRADING  WITH  SLAVES 

1.  What  Trading  Involved  .............................  79 

2.  Laws  on  Trading  with  Negroes  ..........................  81 

3.  Evils  of  Trading  Law  of  1817  .....................  82 

4.  Slaves  Allowed  Land  to  Cultivate  on  Their  Own  Account.  .  .  85 

5.  Enforcement  of  Law  against  Trading  ....................  86 

6.  Extra  Legal  Dealing  with  the  Trader  ....................  88 

7.  Law  of  1857  ......    ..................................  .  .  90 

8.  Laws  Against  Selling  Liquor  to  Slaves  ....................  91 

*  9.     Enforcement  of  the  Laws  ...............................  93 

CHAPTER  IX 

SLAVES  HIRING  THEIR  TIME 

1.  Slavery   an  Agricultural  System  .........................  95 

2.  "Hiring  Out"  a  Slave's  Time  ............................  97 

3.  Results  of  Plan  of  Hiring  Slave's  Time  ..................  98 

4.  Opposition  and  Laws  Dealing  with  It  ....................  99 

5.  Non-enforcement  of  the  Laws  ...........................  99 

6.  Industrial  Competition  Thereby  Caused  —  Memorials  to  the 

Legislature  and  Reports  upon  Them  .................  100 

CHAPTER  X 

THE  SLAVE  TRADE—  FOREIGN  AND  INTERSTATE 

1.  Act  of  1787  ...........................................  103 

2.  1803-1808—  Foreign  Trade  ...............................  104 

3.  Agitation  to  Re-open  the  Foreign  Trade  in  the  Fifties  ......  105 

4.  The  Inter-State  Traffic—  Policy  of  1816  and  1818  ..........  105 

5.  Prohibition  of  the  Entrance  of  Free  Negroes  ..............  107 

CHAPTER  XI 

STEALING  AND  HARBORING  OF  SLAVES  AND  KIDNAPPING 
OF  FREE  NEGROES 

1.  The  Crime  and  its  Surrounding  Conditions  ..............  108 

2.  Slave  Stealing  Gangs  and  their  Methods  ................  109 

3.  Enforcement  of  the  Law  Against  Slave  Stealing  ...........  110 

4.  The  Virginia  and  New  York  Case  ........................  113 

5.  Harboring  Runaways 


viii  Table  of  Contents 

6.  Kidnapping  Free  Negroes — Law  of  1837 115 

7.  Instances  of  Kidnapping 116 

CHAPTER  XII 

RUNAWAY  SLAVES 

1.  Advertisement  for  Runaways 117 

2.  Cause  of  Absconding 118 

3.  Ultimate  Purpose  in  Running  Away 

4.  Laws  on  Runaways ...    119 

5.  Runaway  Camps .  120 

.  6.     The  Underground  Railroads 123 

CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  SEAMEN  ACTS 

1.  Acts  of  1822  and  1835  and  Reasons  For 124 

2.  Conflict    with   Foreign   Governments;    Peter   Petrie;   Judge 

Johnson's  Opinion 125 

3.  Daniel  Fraser  Case 127 

4.  Jim  Jones  Case 128 

5.  Cases  of  Pereira  and  Roberts 128 

6.  Protest  from  Massachusetts — Petition  to  Congress.  . , 129 

7.  Hoar  Sent  as  Agent  to  South  Carolina 130 

8.  Movement  to  Repeal  the  Seamen  Acts 131 

9.  Association  to  Enforce  the  Seamen  Acts 132 

CHAPTER  XIV 

GATHERINGS  OF  NEGROES 

1.  Reasons  for  Laws  Prohibiting  Meetings  of  Negroes 133"* 

2.  Provisions  of  Early  Laws 134 

3.  Laws  of  1800  and  1803 ' 134 

4.  Bell  vs.  Graham,  1818 135     , 

5.  Customs  of  Worship  by  Negroes 137  J 

6.  Efforts  at  Instruction  of  Negroes  Prior  to  1830 138 

7.  Meeting  in  Charleston  Concerning  Religious  Conditions  of 

Negroes 140 

8.  The  Negro  Preacher 141 

9.  Meetings  Composed  of  Blacks  Only 141 

10.  Calvary  Church  in  Charleston 143 

11.  Negro  Funerals 143 

12.  Meetings  of  Negroes  for  Social   Purposes 144 

13.  The  Boozer  Case,    1850. . , 146 


Table  of  Contents  ix 

CHAPTER  XV 

SLAVE  INSURRECTIONS 

1.  Danger  from  Insurrections 148 

2.  Stono,  1739 149 

3.  Camdcn,   1816 151 

4.  Vesey  Plot,   1822 152 

5      Effect  of  the  Vesey  Plot 153 

CHAPTER  XVI 

ABOLITION  AND  INCENDIARY  LITERATURE 

1.  The  Southern  Idea  of  Abolitionism 154 

2.  Laws  of  1820  and  1823 155 

3.  Abolition  Literature 156 

4.  The  Charleston  and  Pendleton  Post  Office  Robberies 156 

5.  Protective  Associations  and  Vigilance  Committees 156 

6.  Agitation   Caused  by  the  John  Brown  Raid;  Organization 

of  the  Districts 160 

7.  Act  of  1859  against  Incendiaries 162 

8.  The  Kingstree  Incident 162 

CHAPTER  XVII 

PROHIBITION  OF  EDUCATING  THE  NEGRO 

1.  Law  of  1740  on  Teaching  Slaves  to  Write 164 

2.  The  Charleston  School  for  Negroes 165 

3.  Agitation  after  1830;  Law  of  1834 166 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

MANUMISSION 

1.  Manumission  before  1800 168 

2.  Law  of  1800 168 

3.  Evils  of  Manumission  as  Seen  by  Southern  People 169 

4.  Law  of  1820 170 

5.  Freedom  by  Bequest 171 

6.  Manumission  and  the  Courts 172 

7.  The  Carmille  Case;  Law  of  1841 172 

8.  Sentiment  on  Emancipation 174 


x  Table  of  Contents 

CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  FREE  NEGRO 

1.  Statistics,  Status,  etc.,  of  Free  Negro 176*/ 

2.  Law  of  1820 177 

3.  Guardian  for  Free  Negroes 178 

4.  Legal  Status  of  Free  Negro 180 

5.  Discriminations  against  the  Free  Negro 182 

6.  Prejudice  against  the  Free  Negro 184 

7.  Agitation  for  the  Re- Enslavement  of  the  Free  Negro 186 

CONCLUSION 190 

APPENDIX 193 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 198 

BIOGRAPHICAL  .  216 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 


CHAPTER   I 
Introductory  Sketch 

South  Carolina  is  situated  between  32°  and  36°  north 
latitude,  and  78°  and  84°  longitude  west  of  Greenwich. 
The  "fall  line"  extends  from  near  North  Augusta  on  the  Sa 
vannah  River  in  a  straight  line  to  Columbia  and  thence  to 
the  North  Carolina  boundary  near  the  place  where  the 
Great  Peedee  enters  the  state.  The  portion  of  the  state 
north  of  this  line  with  its  rapidly  running  rivulets,  rolling, 
rocky  and  often  sterile  hills,  red  with  iron  deposits,  is  known 
as  the  "up  country."  The  northwestern  corner  of  the 
state,  crossed  by  a  part  of  the  Alleghaney  range,  is  decidedly 
mountainous.  Below  the  fall  line  are  often  found  consider 
able  tracts  of  sandy,  barren  land  covered  in  places  with 
shrubbery,  broken  occasionally  by  strips  of  fine  farming 
land.  Extending  toward  the  eastern  corner  is  some  of 
the  best  cotton  producing  soil  in  the  state.  Going  further 
toward  the  south  the  rivers  become  sluggish  and  trespass 
on  the  bottom  lands  forming  extensive  swamps  with  a 
tendency  to  malaria,  a  condition  more  or  less  continuous 
until  the  coast  is  reached.* 

The  first  permanent  settlement  was  made  near  Charles 
ton  in  1670.  The  government  was  administered  by  the 
Proprietors,  to  whom  the  territory  had  been  granted  by 
the  king,  until  1719,  when  owing  to  continual  disagreement 
between  the  Proprietors  and  the  settlers  the  colony  was 
made  a  Royal  Province.  Until  about  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  when  a  treaty  was  made  with  the 
Indians  by  which  land  concessions  were  obtained,  there 
were  no  settlements  in  the  upper  part  of  the  state  ether 

*For  a  good  summary  of  the  physiographic  conditions  of  the  dif 
ferent  sections  of  the  state  as  they  aftected  its  history,  see  Schaper: 
Sectionalism  in  South  Carolina,  Amer.  Hist.  Assn.  Reports  1900, 
vol.  I,  pp.  253-258, 


2'>  '  Control,  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

than  mere  trading  posts.  South  Carolinians  took  a  promi 
nent  part  in  the  revolutionary  movements  of  1776  and  later; 
and  after  the  conflict  their  leaders  participated  very  largely 
in  the  affairs  of  the  young  nation.  The  Federalist  leaders 
in  South  Carolina  toward  the  close  of  the  century  had  to 
give  way  before  the  rise  of  the  Republican  party.  A  new 
generation  of  statesmen  with  leaders  like  Lowndes  and 
Calhoun  soon  took  an  influential  part  in  national  politics 
involving  the  issues  arising  in  the  war  of  1812  and  the  coun 
try's  growth  after  that  conflict.  Later,  however,  the  dis 
agreements  over  the  tariff  leading  up  to  the  Nullification 
troubles  caused  the  state  to  lose  prestige  in  Congress. 
Under  the  leadership  of  Calhoun,  who  in  a  sense  represented 
the  slavery  interests  of  the  South,  the  attitude  of  the  state 
until  1860  became  one  of  distrust  of  the  federal  govern 
ment,  and  from  a  place  of  prominence  in  the  councils  of 
the  nation  she  pursued  a  policy  of  resistance  all  her  own 
which  finally  culminated  in  secession  in  1860. 

Now  we  turn  to  the  economic  life  of  the  people.  Con 
siderable  time  was  spent  by  the  colonists  in  experimenting 
with  crops  to  find  one  sufficiently  profitable  to  render  the 
colony  self-supporting.  Rice,  it  was  soon  discovered,  could 
be  grown  to  advantage  and  for  a  century  it  remained  the 
most  important  crop.  Indigo  growing  also,  thanks  to  the 
experiment  of  Eliza  Lucas,  came  to  be  a  profitable  industry 
owing  to  the  encouragement  it  received  from  bounties 
of  the  British  government.  These  bounties  ceased  with 
the  breaking  out  of  the  Revolution,  after  which  the  indigo 
industry  waned.  But  not  until  the  invention  of  the 
cotton  gin  toward  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  did 
the  state  co  me  to  have  a  staple  crop  greatly  in  demand  and 
at  the  same  time  one  almost  uniformly  adapted  to  the 
soil  in  practically  all  sections.  It  had  been  observed  that 
none  but  negro  labor  could  flourish  in  the  low  swampy 
country.  This  fact  had  given  impetus  to  the  importation 
of  African  slaves  before  the  up-country  was  opened  to 
settlement.  It  was  soon  discovered  after  the  stimulation 
given  cotton  culture  by  the  invention  of  a  machine  to 
separate  the  seed  from  the  lint  that  slave  labor  could  be 
used  to  greatest  advantage  in  cotton  growing.  This 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  3 

discovery  determined  the  economic  policy  of  the  state  and 
fastened  slavery  upon  its  social  organization.  This  was 
true  of  the  up-country  as  well  as  of  the  low-country  and 
gradually  made  the  state  a  unit  in  its  policy  with  reference 
to  slavery. 

As  we  have  seen,  slavery  had  acquired  a  strong  foothold 
in  the  state  before  the  cotton  industry  became  prominent. 
Not  only  the  need  of  cheap  labor,  but  the  cupidity  of  the 
English  slave  trader  was  a  contributing  cause  to  the  growth 
of  slavery.  This  slave  trade  to  America  was  protected 
by  the  English  government  often  in  the  face  of  protests 
made  by  the  colonies.  Slaves  were  first  introduced  into 
the  colony  from  the  Barbadoes  in  1671  by  Sir  John  Yeamans. 
The  number  grew  from  year  to  year  both  by  increase  of 
the  native  born  and  by  importations  until  in  1708  it  is 
estimated  to  have  been  4,100t.  Within  about  a  quarter 
of  a  century  the  number  is  estimated  to  have  been,  in 
1735,  40,000.  It  is  probable  that  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
Revolutionary  war  the  number  had  reached  nearly  100,000*. 
According  to  the  first  federal  census  of  1790  the  number  of 
slaves  in  the  state  was  108,805.  The  colored  population 
increased  steadily  in  an  almost  uniform  ratio  until  1860, 
the  official  enumeration  of  that  year  being:  slaves,  402,406; 
free  colored,  9,914,  or  a  total  of  412,320  negroes  in  the  state. 
A  few  figures  as  to  their  distribution  will  be  interesting. 
Hammond  says*  that  in  1790  the  "upper  and  middle  regions" 
of  South  Carolina  had  only  about  28,000  slaves  out  of  a  total 
for  the  state  of  108,805.  Schaper§  for  the  purposes  of  his 
study  of  sectionalism  in  the  state  deduces  the  following 
interesting  figures  from  the  census  of  1860:  there  were 

fThese  figures  are  taken  from  careful  comparative  estimate  made  in 
the  appendix,  p.  115,  of  Whitney's  "Government  in  the  Colony  of 
South  Carolina."  Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Studies,  17th  series,  1  and  2. 

*For  1775  Whitney's  lowest  estimate  is  80,000  and  highest  104,000. 
For  1776  DeBow  (Industrial  Resources  of  the  South  and  W7est,  vol. 
Ill,  130)  places  it  at  110,000.  Compare  this  with  the  official  census 
of  1790  given  below. 

tThe  Cotton  Industry,  p.  28, 

SP.  391. 


4  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

26,701  slave  owners  in  the  state  with  an  average  of  fifteen 
slaves  to  each  owner;  the  average  per  owner  in  the  low- 
country  was  twenty-one,  while  in  the  up-country  it  was 
eleven;  the  largest  plantation  was  in  Georgetown  with 
one  thousand  slaves;  seven  plantations  employed  five 
hundred  slaves  each;  twenty-two  had  three  hundred  each. 
He  estimates  that  there  were  26,701  households  interested 
in  slavery  as  against  31,559  households  not  so  interested. 

McCrady  has  shown  very  conclusively*  the  influence  of 
the  Barbadian  slave  code  upon  the  Carolina  code  of  1712. 
Both  had  identical  preambles.  A  comparison  of  some  of 
the  provisions  of  the  two  codes  reveal  further  similarities 
in  the  following  particulars! :  no  white  person  was  to  suffer 
punishment  for  injuring  or  killing  a  slave  who  resisted 
lawful  chastisement;  at  first  only  a  fine  was  imposed  upon 
a  white  person  for  the  murder  of  a  negro,  although  later, 
as  in  South  Carolina,  the  penalty  was  made  death ;  the  slave 
was  denied  the  right  of  self  defense  against  a  white  person ; 
negro  evidence  against  a  white  person  was  not  accepted 
in  any  court;  mutilation  and  other  graduated  punishments 
were  provided  for  slaves;  the  court  for  the  trial  of  slaves 
was  composed  of  magistrates  and  freeholders,  though  a 
unanimous  verdict  was  necessary  for  conviction  of  a  capital 
offense,  which  was  not  the  case  in  South  Carolina.  It 
is  no  more  than  a  fair  conclusion  that  the  code  of  the  Eng 
lish  Barbadoes  was  the  basis  of  the  Carolina  code. 

J.  C.  Ballagh,  who  in  his  History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia 
has  elaborated  the  legal  phase  of  slavery,  thinks  it  is  difficult 
to  say  how  far  Spanish  slavery  in  America  influenced 
English  slavery,  but  probably  if  there  was  any  influence 
at  all  it  was  very  slight.  This  suggests  another  inquiry 
to  which  the  following  pages  will  revert:  to  what  extent 
can  these  American  codes  be  traced,  if  at  all,  to  the  ancient 

*South  Carolina  Under  the  Royal  Government,  p.  46.  Slavery 
in  the  Province  of  South  Carolina,  p.  645,  Amer.  Hist.  Assn.  Reports 
1895. 

tPoyer:  History  of  the  Barbadoes,  pp.  132-144.  A  summary  of 
the  provisions  of  the  code  of  1688  is  here  given. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  5 

slavery  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans?  Of  this  Ballagh  saysf 
that  it  is  "one  of  institutional  similarity  rather  than  causal 
relation."  It  was  after  the  system  was  a  realized  fact  that 
writers  and  jurists  turned  to  the  institutions  of  decayed 
civilizations  for  comparisons  and  authority. 

But  if  we  turn  to  the  system  of  indented  servitude  we 
probably  get  the  germ  idea  of  the  laws  for  slave  control. 
The  white  redemptioner  was  sold  for  a  term  of  service 
along  with  the  slave,  the  chief  difference  between  his 
status  and  that  of  the  slave  being  that  the  former  labored 
under  an  indenture  for  a  limited  time,  the  latter  under  an  in 
denture  for  life.  The  laws  prevented  the  indented  servant 
from  buying  or  selling  by  providing  punishment  for  any  per 
son  who  traded  with  him ;  he  was  not  allowed  to  leave  the 
master's  premises  without  permission ;  an  offense  against  a 
servant  was  not  so  heavily  punished  as  one  against  a  freeman ; 
he  was  subject  to  correction  with  moderate  chastisement 
by  the  master;  when  he  ran  away  his  term  of  service  was 
lengthened  on  his  re-capture;  he  received  from  the  master 
a  certificate  of  freedom  at  the  end  of  his  term  of  servitude. 
The  term  of  service  in  the  case  of  the  indented  servant 
was  limited,  in  that  of  the  slave  it  was  for  life, — this  con 
trast  marks  the  point  of  departure  in  dealing  with  an  in 
dented  servant  and  in  dealing  with  a  slave;  the  latter  was 
serving  a  term  for  life,  hence  corporal  punishment  as  a 
penalty  was  resorted  to  more  freely.  This  view  led  to  the 
more  general  idea,  that  the  master  ought  to  be  given 
complete  control  over  the  slave,  with  some  limitations,  of 
course.  The  earliest  preserved  laws  of  the  colony  show  little 
or  no  distinction  between  the  white  servant  and  the  black 
slave  as  to  control  and  management.  But  the  number  of 
slaves  increased  so  rapidly  and  their  barbaric  character 
was  so  pronounced  that  a  more  comprehensive  policy 
had  to  be  sought.  The  regulations  which  were  sufficient 
for  a  small  number  of  white  servants,  indented  for  a  limited 
period  of  time,  were  found  to  be  quite  inadequate  for  the 
large  number  of  blacks  owned  absolutely  by  the  white 
man.  Here  the  differentiation  seems  to  have  begun,  and 

fPoyer:     History  of  the  Barbadoes,  p.  2. 


6  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

so  at  about  this  stage  of  development  the  government 
turned  to  the  English  plantation  system  of  the  West 
Indies  for  suggestions  which  took  form  in  the  Carolina 
slave  code. 

The  system  of  control  as  we  know  it  during  the  last  half 
century  of  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  South  is  clearly 
a  development  from  conditions  arising  out  of  the  presence 
in  the  colony  of  the  African  negroes  with  barbaric  traits. 
These  laws  were  amended  and  added  to  as  the  needs  of 
the  master  required  from  time  to  time,  and  as  the  necessity 
for  peace  and  good  order  in  the  community  seemed  to 
demand.  A  few  acts  were  passed  before  1712  but  it  was 
in  that  year  that  the  first  elaborate  law  for  the  control  of  the 
slaves  was  enacted.  This  act  was  completely  revised  and 
replaced  by  a  more  comprehensive  law  passed  in  1740, 
commonly  known  as  the  Negro  Law.  This  law  of  1740 
was  re-enacted  after  the  Revolutionary  war,  and  until 
1860,  though  amended,  remained  the  organic  black  code. 
Other  amendatory  acts  were  passed  from  time  to  time 
but  the  law  of  1740  remained  the  basis  of  all  later  slave 
regulation 


CHAPTER    II 
Legal  Status  of  the  Slave 

After  some  method  had  come  to  be  applied  in  the  control 
and  management  of  the  blacks  the  courts  began  to  inter 
pret  the  system  of  slavery  and  the  relations  of  the  master 
to  his  slave,  and  to  give  some  fixed  legal  form  to  the  insti 
tution.  It  may  be  observed  at  the  outset  that  the  decisions 
of  the  courts  are  along  the  lines  of  expediency  and  that 
no  fine-spun  theory  interfered  with  the  early  established 
practical  management  of  the  slave.  The  court  for  the 
most  part  defines  what  the  codes  and  customs  developed 
into  laws  are,  enforcing  its  mandates  of  humanity  toward 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  7 

the  ward  and  encouraging  in  a  conservative  way  all  philan 
thropic  movements  toward  a  more  liberal  interpretation 
of  the  institution. 

Of  the  general  control  of  the  black  population  in  the] 
ante-bellum  South  Professor  Phillips  says  in  substance* 
that  they  were  controlled  more  by  men  than  by  laws; 
that  the  statutes  were  placed  on  the  books  chiefly  for 
emergency  use,  but  under  ordinary  circumstances  many  of 
them  were  dead  letters.  This  seems  to  be  the  correct 
view.  For  example,  the  law  to  prohibit  trading  with  a 
slave  without  permission  from  the  master  was  very  strin 
gent  and  often  vigorously  enforced  when  the  trading  was 
done  by  persons  who  deliberately  undertook  to  gain  ad 
vantage  by  the  theft  cf  the  slave.  When,  however,  the 
slave  was  selling  his  ow^n  produce  with  the  permission  of 
his  master  bargains  were  openly  made  and  no  complaint 
arose.  On  the  other  hand  the  Seamen  Acts,  prohibiting 
the  presence  of  free  negroes  openly  at  the  ports  when  they 
were  members  of  crews  of  visiting  ships,  were  apparently 
always  enforced  to  the  letter.  The  subject  then  presents 
the  difficulty  of  determining  to  what  extent  the  laws  were 
carried  out. 

The  Act  of  1712f  declared  that  all  negroes,  mulattoes 
and  mustizoes  who  had  "been  sold,  or  now  are  held  or 
taken  to  be,  or  hereafter  shall  be  bought  or  sold  for  slaves, 
are  hereby  declared  slaves"  together  with  their  children. 
The  determination  of  the  condition  of  the  child  as  to  slavery 
or  freedom  was  made  to  depend  upon  the  status  of  the 
child's  mother.  Slaves  were  in  this  act  defined  as  "in  the 
law  to  be  chattels  personal  in  the  hands  of  their  owner. "§ 
There  must  have  been,  even  at  that  time,  a  considerable 
number  of  free  negroes  and  it  does  not  appear  that  public 
sentiment  tolerated  any  effort  to  reduce  a  free  person  of 

*  Article,  "Racial  Problems,  Adjustments  and  Disturbances  in  the 
Ante-Bellum  South,"  by  Professor  U.  B.  Phillips,  in  The  South  in  the 
Building  of  the  Nation,  vol.  IV,  p.  200. 

tStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  352,  sec.  1. 

8  Before  this  they  had  been  considered  sometimes  as  chattels  and 
sometimes  as  real  estate.  Schaper,  311  Amer.  Hist.  Repts.  1900,  vol.  1. 


8  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

color  to  slavery  when  his  title  to  freedom  was  unquestion 
able.  This  act  further  provided  that  in  case  any  negro 
claimed  to  be  held  unjustly  in  slavery  when  he  had  the 
right  to  freedom  any  white  person  could  apply  to  the  courts 
in  his  behalf  and  secure  appointment  as  guardian,  and 
after  entering  into  bond  guaranteeing  to  produce  the  negro 
whenever  the  court  might  demand  him,  have  a  hearing 
on  the  merits  of  the  case,  the  burden  of  proof  resting  with 
the  plaintiff.  If  the  negro  should  be  declared  entitled  to 
the  right  of  freedom  the  defendants  were  to  be  held  for 
the  costs  of  the  trial.  But  if  the  defendant  should  win  the 
suit  the  court  might  inflict  such  punishment  upon  the 
negro  "not  extending  to  life  or  limb  as  in  the  opinion  of 
the  court  is  fit."  Thus  it  would  seem  that  the  difficulties 
were  great  even  where  a  negro  had  a  good  case.  Having 
no  legal  standing  in  the  courts  he  must  secure  as  his  guard 
ian  some  interested  white  person;  and  he  must  then  prove 
his  right  to  freedom,  though  himself  disqualified  as  a  witness, 
while  the  defense  was  under  no  obligation  to  offer  testi 
mony;  and  corporal  punishment,  which  if  ordered  by  the 
court  in  case  of  the  failure  of  his  contention,  probably 
awaited  him  at  the  hands  of  the  master  whose  claim  had 
been  questioned — all  of  which  he  was  doubtless  made 
aware.  These  hindrances  doubtless  prevented  all  but  the 
clearest  cases,  and  those  demanded  by  the  sentiments  of 
humanity,  from  coming  to  the  courts  at  all.  It  was  prob 
ably  intended  to  reach  only  cases  of  free  negroes  who 
had  been  kidnapped  and  sold  into  slavery. 

There  were  some  such  cases  tried.  One  that  is  left  on 
record  is  that  of  Miller  vs.  Reigne*  heard  by  the  Court 
of  Appeals  in  1835.  The  court  set  free  two  colored  women 
whom  it  declared  to  have  been  wrongfully  held  in  slavery. 
The  evidence  on  which  the  court  reached  its  decision  was 
that  they  had  been  acting  as  free  persons  for  more  than 
twenty  years,  and  that  this  presumed  a  deed  of  manumission 
prior  to  1820. 

The  question  occasionally  arose  as  to  the  proportion  of 
negro  blood  required  to  constitute  a  negro  in  the  eyes  of 

*2  Hill  (Law  Reports),  592. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  9 

the  law.  This  is  important,  for  if  determined  a  negro, 
the  person  is  not  entitled  to  jury  trial  nor  is  he  capable 
of  giving  evidence  in  court  against  a  white  person.  Judge 
O'Neall,  for  many  years  a  justice  of  the  highest  court,  in 
his  manual,  "The  Negro  Law  in  South  Carolina, "f  after 
stating  that  no  specific  rule  had  been  laid  down,  says  that 
it  is  a  question  for  the  jury,  but  indicates  that ^  it  is  made 
to  appear  that  if  the  person  has  less  than  one-eighth  of  negro 
blood  in  his  veins  the  jury  ought  to  find  him  white,  and  if 
more  than  one-fourth  they  "must  find  him  a  negro."  The 
Court  of  Appeals  had  been  called  upon  before  this  to  de 
termine  the  matter  but  went  no  further  than  to  say  that 
the  court  may  determine  by  inspection  of  features  or  repu 
tation  as  to  amount  of  negro  blood  and  also  as  to  whether 
he  had  been  received  in  society  as  a  white  person.* 

The  sessions  record  of  Kershaw  district  for  the  fall  term 
of  1845  contains  the  following: 

In  the  Matter  of  Wm.  Scott. 

Jury  No.  2  tried  this  case  and  returned  the  fol 
lowing  verdict:  We  find  the  relator,  Wm.  Scott, 
to  be  a  free  negro,  mulatto  or  mustizo. 

,  Foreman. 

This  verdict  must  have  been  set  aside — though  the  record 
does  not  show  it — or  there  was  another  "Wm.  Scott," 
for  on  April  6,  1847,  he  was  found  guilty  of  assault  and 
battery  on  a  slave,  and  on  April  8  sentenced  to  one  month's 
imprisonment.  At  the  spring  term  in  1846  it  appears 
that  the  question  of  the  color  of  four  persons  was  submitted 
to  a  jury,  probably  to  determine  whether  or  not  they  had 
standing  in  the  session  court,  and  they  were  officially  found 
to  be  mulattoes.  The  sessions  record  of  Marlborough 
district  for  1850  notes  that  an  indictment  handed  to  the 

tPage  6. 

*1  Bailey  (Law),  270:  State  vs.  Scott,  decided  in  1829;  1  Bailey 
(Law),  275:  State  vs.  Hayes,  decided  in  1829;  1  Bailey  (Law),  294: 
State  vs.  Scott,  decided  in  1829;  1  Spears  (Law),  268:  Johnson  vs. 
Boon,  decided  in  1843. 


10  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

grand  jury  was  returned  with  the  following  endorsement 
signed  by  the  foreman: 

4 'We  report  him  a  free  person  of  color." 
But  from  what  sources  shall  an  interpretation  of  this 
new  relation  of  whites  and  blacks  to  each  other  be  had? 
The  slave  was  not  a  chattel  in  the  same  sense  that  a  lower 
animal  was  a  chattel,  but  a  person,  in  a  limited  legal  sense 
it  is  true;*  he  did  not  enjoy  the  rights  of  equality  with  the 
white  man,  nor  did  he  enjoy  the  same  rights  before  the  law. 
In  a  few  cases  the  Court  of  Appeals  undertook  to  answer 
the  fundamental  questions  as  to  .the  legal  status  of  the  slave 
which  might  arise.  In  1812  in  the  case  of  the  Executors 
of  Walker  vs.  Bostick  &  Walkerf  it  was  pointed  out  that 
the  Roman  Law  and  not  the  English  Common  Law  was 
to  be  the  guide  and  source  of  authority  in  interpreting 
the  slave  laws.  The  court  said  in  part: 

"The  condition  of  slaves  in  this  country  is  analog 
ous  to  that  of  the  slaves  of  the  ancients,  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  and  not  that  of  the  villeins  of  feudal 
times.  They  are,  generally  speaking,  not  considered  as 
persons  but  as  things.  Almost  all  our  statute  regula 
tions  follow  the  principles  of  the  civil  law  in  relation 
to  slaves  except  in  a  few  cases,  wherein  the  manners 
of  modern  times  softened  by  the  benign  principles 
of  Christianity  could  not  tolerate  the  severity  of 
the  Roman  regulations.  But  in  most  other  respects 
they  are  considered  as  property." 
Again  in  1835  the  court  had  occasion  to  say:§ 

"The  status,  the  entire  civil  and  political  condition 
of  the  villein,  was  in  almost  every  particular  different 
from  that  of  our  slave.  He  had  a  perfect  civil  and 
political  capacity  and  all  the  rights  of  a  freeman  against 
every  person  but  his  lord ;  and  with  respect  to  the  lord 
was  very  different  from  that  of  the  slave." 

*1  Bay  (Law),  358:  State  vs.  Thackam  &  Mayson,  decided  in  1794; 
2  McCord  (Law),  463:  State  vs.  Calder,  decided  in  1823;  1  Spears  (Law) 
13:  State  vs.  Jackson  &  Montgomery,  decided  1842. 

|4  DeSaussure  (Equity  Reports),  266. 

§2  Hill  (Chancery  Reports),  390:     Fable  vs.  Brown. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  11 

/ 

As  to  the  slave's  rights  under  the  common  law  the  Con 
stitutional  Court  in  1818  said:f 

"The  peace  of  society  and  the  safety  of  individuals 
required    that    slaves    should    be    subjected    to    the 
authority  and  control  of  all  freemen  when  not  under 
the  immediate  authority  of  their  masters." 
And  again  in  1847:* 

"A    slave    can   invoke   neither   Magna   Charta   nor 
common  law.  ...  In  the  very  nature    of  things  he 
is  subject  to  despotism.     Law  to  him  is  only  a  com 
pact  between  his  rulers,  and  the  questions  which  con 
cern  him  are  matters  agitated    between   them.     The 
various  acts  concerning  slaves  contemplates  through 
out  the  subordination  of    the   servile   class  to  every 
free  white  person  and  enforce  the  stern  policy  which 
the  relation  of  master  and  slave  necessarily  requires. 
Any  conduct  of  a  slave    inconsistent  with    due  sub 
ordination    contravenes    the    purpose    of    these   acts. 
.  .  .  The  prohibition  of  whatever  is  inconsistent  with 
the  relation  established  is  of  course  implied." 
To  this  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  court  there  was  a 
strong  dissenting  opinion  in  which  Justice  O'Neall  takes 
the  ground  that  the  subordination  of  the  one  race  to  the 
other  is   "mere   bench   legislation,"   holding  that   specific 
enactment  was   necessary    to   make  an  act  criminal;  he 
further  thought  such  a  theory  would  lead  to  harm. 

The  extreme  conservative  policy  of  the  law-making 
body  toward  any  change  in  the  direction  of  a  more  liberal 
policy  was  felt  by  public  men  of  the  time  as  is  evidenced 
in  the  following  statement  of  a  case  by  Judge  Withers 
in  1850:§ 

"Our  fundamental  code,  now  time-honored,  is  that 
of  1740.  It  was  enacted  soon  after  a  violent,  barbar 
ous  and  somewhat  servile  bloody  attack  at  Stono.  Not 
a  few  of  its  provisions  took  their  hue  from  the 
exigency  of  the  occasion,  and  that  it  has  faded  some- 

fl  Nott  &  McCord  (Law),  182:     Witsell  vs.  Parker. 
*2  Strobhart  (Law),  43:     Ex  parte  Boylston. 
§5  Strobhart  (Law),  24:     State  vs.  Boozer  et  al. 


12  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

what  in  the  lapse  of  time  is  only  the  usual  inevi 
table  consequence  of  all  police  systems  in  the  shape  of 
positive  terms,  which  cannot  have  the  quality  to  keep 
up  with  the  advancement  of  a  community." 
This  tendency  not  to  interfere  in  changing  the  slave  code 
appeared  in  the  failure  of  the  General  Assembly  to  heed 
the  urgent  request  of  Governor  Wilson  in  his  annual 
message  in  1824  for  a  complete  revision  of  these  laws.* 
The  slave  being  denied  many  of  the  rights  granted  to 
free  whites,  such  as  self-defense  or  the  pursuit  of  his  own 
happiness,  some  apparent  compensation  was  attempted 
in  an  analogy,  drawn  possibly  from  Roman  law  or  the 
natural  justice  of  the  situation  which  suggested  the  family 
relationship  that  ought  in  a  measure  to  exist  between  the 
slave  and  the  master.  The  religious  literature,  sermons 
and  other  documents  having  to  do  with  the  betterment  of 
the  condition  of  the  slave  almost  uniformly  held  the  slave 
owner  responsible  before  God  for  the  moral  and  religious 
life  of  his  slave,  on  the  ground  that  he  is  placed  in  a  sort 
of  patriarchal  relationship  to  his  ward,  who  is  not  a  chattel 
merely  but  also  a  person  in  the  moral  sense.  Judge 
O'Neall,  who  wrote  many  of  the  decisions  of  the  highest 
court  on  slavery  questions  and  whose  book,  "The  Slave 
Law  of  South  Carolina,"  while  it  may  bear  the  earmarks 
of  haste,  is  still  a  most  valuable  compendium  with  comment 
on  the  legal  phases  of  slavery,  appears  to  have  been  in  the 
forefront  in  a  progressive  interpretation  of  the  slave  system 
in  the  direction  of  its  amelioration,  f  In  the  case  of  Tennent 

*The  official  documents  containing  the  messages  of  the  governors 
are  in  many  cases  lost,  particularly  those  of  the  earlier  ones.  However, 
the  reprints  of  nearly  all  of  them  may  be  found  in  the  contemporary 
newspapers  of  the  time.  Complete  files  of  several  of  the  Charleston 
newspapers  are  preserved  in  the  Charleston  Library. 

tjudge  John  Belton  O'Neall  (1793-1863)  was  of  pure  Irish  ancestry, 
born  in  Newberry  district  where  he  spent  his  life.  His  parents  were 
members  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  He  graduated  at  the  South  Caro 
lina  College,  and  began  the  practice  of  law,  serving  for  a  while  in  the 
lower  house  of  the  General  Assembly.  In  1828  he  was  elected  to  the 
bench,  being  elevated  later  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  and  in  1859  to  the 
highest  justiceship,  which  he  held  until  his  death.  Chapman:  Annals 
of  Newberry. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  13 

vs.  Dendy,  decided  in  1837,  speaking  for  the  Court  of  Ap 
peals,  Judge  O'Neall  said  of  slaves  :f 

"They  are  human  beings  with  passions  and  feel 
ings  like  our  own  and  with  the  same  capability  of 
right  and  wrong  action.  They,  if  in  a  state  of  nature, 
would  have  the  right  of  self-protection  which  is  given 
by  the  great  Creator  to  every  human  being.  Their 
transfer  from  a  state  of  nature  to  a  state  of  slavery  in 
society  has  not  destroyed  the  right  of  personal  protec 
tion;  it  has  taken  it  from  the  slave  and  given  it  to 
the  master.  ...  In  the  relation  of  master  and  servant 
the  dependence  of  the  latter  on  the  former  alone  for 
protection  cannot  be  too  much  encouraged.  The  slave 
ought  to  be  fully  aware  that  his  master  is  to  him  what 
the  best  administered  government  is  to  the  good 
citizen,  a  perfect  security  from  injury.  When  this  is 
the  case  the  relation  of  master  and  servant  becomes 
little  short  of  that  of  parent  and  child — it  commences 
in  the  weakness  of  the  one  and  the  strength  of  the 
other.  Its  benefits  produce  the  corresponding  con 
sequences  of  deep  and  abiding  grateful  attachments 
from  the  slave  to  the  master,  and  hence  result  [ruany] 
instances  of  devotion." 

DeBow  in  his  "Review"*  bears  out  this  idea  in  a  some 
what  practical  way  by  saying  that  usually  slaves  were  more 
willing  to  obey  an  order  if  they  knew  that  it  came  from  the 
master  direct  than  if  it  was  merely  from  the  overseer. 
This  feeling  would  indicate  that  a  sort  of  filial  reverence 
for  the  master  was  showing  itself  in  a  recognition  of  his 
paternal  relationship  to  them. 

Recognizing  this  same  principle  of  the  family  relation 
ship  twenty  years  before  the  rendering  of  the  above  de 
cision  the  court  maintained  that  a  slave  owner  could  be 
held  liable  in  a  civil  suit  for  care  and  medical  attention 
rendered  by  a  physician  who  had  cared  for  a  slave  that  had 
been  ill-treated  and  driven  from  home  by  her  master. 
The  court  cites  as  a  parallel  case  that  of  a  wife  driven 

tl  Dudley  (Law),  84. 
*XXI,  277. 


14  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

from  her  husband's  home  by  the  husband  and  destitute, 
arguing  that  the  person  who  should  provide  her  the  neces 
sities  of  life  could  recover  damages  of  the  husband.  The 
court  says:* 

"The  master  is  bound  by  the  most  solemn  obligation 
to  protect  his  slave  from  suffering,  he  is  bound  by  the 
same  obligations  to  defray  the  expenses  or  services  of 
another  to  preserve  the  slave  from  pain  and  danger. 
The  slave  lives  for  his  master's  service.  His  time, 
his  labor,  his  comforts,  are  all  at  his  master's  disposal. 
The  duty  of  humane  treatment  and  of  medical  assist 
ance  when  clearly  necessary  ought  not  to  be  with- 

holden."t 

The  act  of  1740  protected  a  slave  who  committed  a 
crime  in  defense  of  his  master.  This  quasi-feudal  regu 
lation  seems  inconsistent  with  the  rule  that  no  slave  was 
allowed  to  protect  himself  in  self-defense  against  a  white 
man .  The  latter  was  probably  made  with  a  view  to  a  more 
complete  subjection  of  the  black  to  the  white  race ;  the  form 
er  with  a  view  to  encourage  his  making  the  master's  interest 
his  own  interest,  the  purpose  being  then  to  hold  the  master 
responsible  for  the  consequences.  Furthermore  a  slave 
committing  a  crime  at  the  command  of  the  master  is  not 
to  be  held  responsible^  If  "the  slave  acting  without  a 
will  but  by  his  master's  compulsion"  should  commit  a 
homicide  "he  would  be  the  bloody  instrument  of  his  cruelty, 
but  might  be  guilty  of  no  legal  offense;  the  master  would 
be  guilty  of  murder."  A  slave  who  had  killed  another 
slave  in  Charleston  was  acquitted  by  a  court  for  the  trial 
of  slaves  in  1847  on  the  ground  that  he  was  acting  on  the 
authority  of  his  mistress.  The  news  item  shows  further- 
that  the  case  against  the  owner  was  docketed  for  the 
approaching  term  of  court. 

*2  Brevard  (Law),  130:     Fairchild  vs.  Bell,  decided  in  1807. 

fSee  also,  2  Bailey  (Law),  562:  Johnson  vs.  Barrett,  decided  in 
1832,  where  medical  assistance  is  called  in  by  the  slave  herself  without 
the  knowledge  or  wish  of  her  master,  and  the  master  is  held  liable  for 
the  expenses. 

§Bailey  (Law),  66:     State  vs.  Crank,  decided  in  1831. 

JThe  Southern  Chronicle  (Columbia),  Jan.  27,  1847, 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  15 

There  was  another  legal  disability  under  which  the  slave 
labored.  He  could  not  bring  an  action  of  any  kind  in 
court  in  his  own  name.  He  could  not  prosecute  for  a 
battery,  nor  enter  civil  suit.  He  could  not  even  begin 
legal  proceedings  to  test  his  right  to  freedom.  Only  in 
the  name  of  another,  a  white  man  as  "next  friend,"  could 
a  test  be  made.*  What  is  said  of  the  slave  in  this  respect 
is  applicable  to  the  free  negro.  In  the  case  of  the  slave, 
the  master  was  supposed  to  be  the  judge  of  whether  an 
action  was  necessary;  and  in  the  case  of  the  free  negro 
some  white  person  must  become  sufficiently  interested  in 
the  cause  to  act  as  a  "next  friend." 

Because  of  the  primitive  condition  of  the  slaves  and  free 
negroes  and  their  lack  of  moral  responsibility  they  were 
not  admitted  as  witnesses  competent  to  give  evidence 
against  a  white  person.  It  appears,  howrever,  that  no 
specific  law  prevented  the  introduction  of  negro  evidence 
against  a  white  person,  but  that  his  legal  disability  as  a 
witness  was  regarded  as  an  axiom  of  law  and  common 
sense.  The  concessions  made  him  in  this  respect  arise 
more  from  the  necessity  of  the  circumstances  of  his  relations 
than  by  his  right. 

But  from  the  first  a  slave's  confession  before  the  negro 
court  was  admitted  as  a  plea  in  answer  to  any  charge  against 
him.  His  testimony,  too,  was  admissible  against  another 
slave  or  free  negro  against  whom  no  "Christian  evidence" 
is  presented  and  such  slave  or  free  negro  was,  according  to 
the  act  of  1712,  not  to  be  convicted  of  an  offense  for  which 
the  penalty  was  loss  of  "limb  or  life"  except  by  his  own 
confession  or  by  the  "plain  and  positive  evidence  of  two 
negroes  or  slaves,  so  circumstanced  that  there  shall  not  be 
sufficient  reason  to  doubt  the  truth"  of  their  testimony 
and  after  the  court  has  ascertained  that  they  "bear  no 
malice"  to  the  accused.  An  exception  to  this  was  to  be 
made  in  the  case  of  murder  in  which  the  evidence  of  one 
slave  might  be  sufficient  if  to  the  justice  his  testimony 
appeared  to  be  plausible.  The  act  of  1740  following  this 

*3  Brevard  (Law)  11:  Susan,  a  free  woman  of  color,  VF.  Wells, 
decided  in  1811. 


16  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

made  it  clear  that  these  regulations  for  the  trial  of  slaves 
were  applicable  in  toto  to  free  negroes  as  well  as  slaves. 

There  were,  however,  indirect  ways  in  which  a  negro's 
testimony  might  come  to  form  a  part  of  the  evidence 
before  a  court  of  record.  Information  as  to  his  bodily 
health  confided  to  a  physician,  which  formed  a  part  of 
the  doctor's  physical  examination  of  the  slave,  would  be 
admissible  as  evidence.*  The  record  of  a  court  for  negroes 
containing  the  confession  of  a  slave  as  a  part  of  evidence 
on  which  the  slave  was  convicted  of  a  felony  might  be  given 
in  the  evidence  in  the  trial  of  a  free  white  man  as  an  acces 
sory  before  the  fact.f 

In  2  Brevard  Law  Cases,  page  145,  is  given  a  very  short 
report  of  the  case  of  the  State  vs.  McDowell,  heard  in 
1807,  on  an  appeal  from  conviction  for  assault  in  Green 
ville  district,  in  which  it  appears  that  a  free  man  of  color 
had  been  admitted  as  a  witness  for  the  prosecution  against 
a  white  man.  It  reads  in  part: 

"On  motion  it  was  determined  in  this  court  by  all 
the  judges  that  any  person  of  color,  if  the  issue  of  a 
free  white  woman,  is  entitled  to  give  evidence  and  ought 
to  be  admitted  as  a  witness  in  our  courts." 

This  pronouncement  of  the  court  seems  to  be  somewhat 
out  of  the  ordinary  as  compared  with  later  decisions.  It 
must  have  been  that  the  fairness  of  the  hearing  in  this 
particular  case,  owing  possibly  to  some  peculiar  circum 
stances,  was  evident  and  that  the  ends  of  justice  had  been 
served.  Hence  in  absence  of  any  statutory  provision  to 
the  contrary,  "on  motion"  the  judges  determined  what 
"ought"  to  be  done. 

The  highest  court  in  two  later  instances,  182 1§  and  again 
in  1831*,  stated,  in  the  first,  that  a  free  person  of  color  "is 
an  incompetent  witness,  in  any  case,  where  the  rights  of 
white  persons  are  concerned."  In  the  latter  it  said  in 

*1  Harper  (Law),  38:     Grey  vs.  Young,  decided   in    1823:  1  Dudley 
(Law),  327:     McClintock  vs.  Hunter,  decided  in  1838. 
f2  Bailey  (Law),  29:     State  vs.  Sims,  decided  in  1830. 
§1   McCord  (Law),  430:     White  vs.  Helms. 
*2  in  Bailey  (Law),  192:  Groning  vs.  Devarra. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  17 

part:  "A  free  person  of  color  is  not  a  competent  witness,  in 
any  case,  in  the  courts  of  record  of  this  state,  although  both 
"the  parties  to  the  suit  are  of  the  same  class  with  himself." 

In  1751  an  act,*  after  relating  that  there  had  been  several 
executions  of  slaves  for  poisoning,  and  after  providing 
for  a  more  vigorous  punishment  of  such  offenses,  offered 
to  any  slave  or  free  negro  who  would  give  information 
of  an  attempt  of  any  slave  to  poison  his  master  a  reward 
of  four  pounds  provided  such  information  led  to  the  slave's 
conviction.  But  if  any  slave  should  suffer  as  a  result  of 
any  such  testimony  which  afterwards  turned  out  to  be  false, 
the  unfaithful  witness  was  subjected  to  the  same  penalty 
as  is  assessed  for  the  crime.  The  difficulty  here  was  prob 
ably  as  it  was  later:  it  was  difficult  to  get  one  slave  to  in 
form  against  another.  Mr.  Seabrook,  in  a  pamphlet  on 
the  management  of  slaves,  published  in  1834J,  says  that 
this  was  one  of  the  things  that  most  interfered  with  the 
police  control  of  the  slaves.  Again,  the  negro  was  used 
to  effect  in  securing  evidence  against  persons  charged  with 
negro  trading  and  liquor  selling.^ 

While  perhaps  it  is  true  that  the  slaves  were  a  closed 
group  on  smaller  offenses  like  petty  theft,  they  would 
betray  more  serious  crimes  of  their  fellows.  It  was  in 
this  way  that  the  proposed  Camden  insurrection  of  1816 
was  disclosed.*  In  1817  the  General  Assembly  authorized 
the  Governor  to  purchase  the  freedom  of  the  servant, 
appropriating  $1,100  for  the  purpose  and  providing  an 
annual  pension  of  $50  for  him  after  he  should  be  set  free. 1 1 
A  lasting  debt  of  gratitude  was,  of  course,  considered  to  be 
due  faithful  slaves  who  revealed  the  plot  for  an  uprising 
in  Charleston  in  1822,  which  the  Legislature  meeting  soon 
after  sought  to  repay  by  voting  Peter,  a  slave  belonging 
to  John  C.  Prioleau,  the  expenses  of  his  emancipation  and 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  422,  sees.  7  and  8. 
IQuoted  in  Harrison:     Gospel  Among  the  Slaves,  p.  102. 
§In  an  editorial  in  the  Rising  Sun  (Newberry),  Mar.  10,  1858,  com 
plaint  is  made  that  negroes  are  paid  to  secure  such  evidence. 
•^-Governor's  annual  message  to  General  Assembly,  1816. 
|  [Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  58,  sec.  2. 


18  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

an  annual  pension  of  $50  during  his  lifetime,  or  in  case  he 
should  prefer  to  remain  in  servitude  or  his  master  should 
refuse  to  set  him  free  the  annual  allowance  was  to  be  in 
creased  to  $100.*  It  may  interest  the  reader  to  know  that  this 
same  negro,  who  it  appears  did  actually  secure  his  freedom, 
was  still  living  in  1857,  and  that  the  Legislature  not  forget 
ful  of  his  services,  raised  his  pension  to  $200  per  annum  to 
be  paid  in  quarterly  installments.! 


CHAPTER    I  I  I 
The  Overseer 

An  overseer  was  necessary  for  the  proper  control  and 
management  of  the  negroes  on  a  plantation.  He  was  not 
only  an  economic  necessity  to  the  plantation,  but  he  acquir 
ed  the  character  of  a  plantation  quasi-police  officer  by  virtue 
of  the  legal  provision  that  all  slaveowners  were  required 
to  have  white  men  on  their  plantations,  in  cases  where 
the  owners  were  not  resident  throughout  the  year.  The 
Act  of  1712§  provided  a  penalty  of  a  fine  of  forty  shillings 
in  the  case  of  any  person  who  should  establish  and  maintain 
a  plantation  or  stock  farm  and  keep  on  such  farm  six 
"negroes  or  slaves"  without  one  or  more  white  persons 
residing  on  the  same.  In  1714  the  colonial  authorities, 
uneasy  on  account  of  the  great  increase  in  the  number  of 
slaves  in  the  province,  laid  a  duty  on  the  importation  of 
slaves.  To  this  the  British  slave  traders  made  objection, 
and  the  lords  proprietors  suggested  as  a  substitute  that 
an  act  be  passed  requiring  every  planter  to  keep  at  least 
one  white  man  to  every  negro  on  his  plantation.*  Fol- 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  194. 

tStatutes  at  Large,  XII,  562. 

^Section  29. 

jSchaper:     Sectionalism  in  South  Carolina,  302,  308, 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  19 

lowing  this  there  was  an  act  with  the  express  purpose  of 
encouraging  white  laborers  to  settle  in  the  colony  which 
required  planters  to  employ  one  white  man  for  every  ten 
negroes  used,  and  one  white  man  for  every  two  thousand 
acres  of  land  held.  For  every  three  months  the  planta 
tion  was  without  this  proportion  a  fine  of  £10  was  to  accrue 
except  that  one  month  might  be  allowed  for  providing 
the  required  number  of  whites  in  case  any  of  the  whites 
should  run  away.* 

The  Act  of  1740  recited  the  following  reason  for  the 
later  provision:  " Whereas  plantations  settled  with  slaves 
without  any  white  person  thereon  may  be  harbors  for 
runaways  and  fugitive  slaves. "S  It  may  have  been  merely 
to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  letter  of  the  Act  of  1712 
that  a  white  person  lame  or  decrepit,  not  capable  of  manag 
ing  the  negroes  on  a  plantation  and  not  intended  to  control 
it  was  kept  on  the  place  where  slaves  were  located.  But 
this  act  provided  that  no  plantation  was  to  be  without  a 
white  person  for  every  twenty-five  slaves.  A  fine  of 
twenty  shillings  for  ea/:h  month  during  which  this  regu 
lation  was  not  observed  was  the  penalty.  The  Act  of  1800f 
required  the  tax  collector  to  have  every  slaveholder  to 
take  oath  that  either  he  lived  on  his  plantation  or  had  a 
white  man  for  every  ten  slaves  on  the  plantation.  Three 
months  was  allowed  for  the  owner  to  secure  another  over 
seer  when  one  left. 

Probably  with  a  view  to  accommodating  some  slave 
owners,  who  on  account  of  malarial  conditions  did  not 
live  on  their  plantations  during  the  whole  of  the  year, 
the  patrol  law  of  1819  provided  that  any  slaveowner  who 
did  not  live  on  his  plantation  seven  months  during  the 
year  and  who  had  on  it  ten  working  slaves  must  have  an 
overseer  on  the  place  on  penalty  for  failure  of  a  fine  of 
fifty  cents  per  month  for  each  slave.  This  was  interpreted, 
in  1825,  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  case  of  the  State 
vs.  Blythet  to  mean  that  a  woman  who  lived  on  the  edge 

*Statutes  at  Large  III,  272;  Act  of  1726. 
§Sec.  46,  p.  413. 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  440,  sec.  5. 
*3  McCord  (Law),  363, 


20  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

of  her  plantation  for  seven  months  of  the  year  fulfilled  the 
requirements  of  the  law,  a  woman  legally  taking  the  place 
of  a  man.  The  patrol  law  of  1839  amends  the  former  by 
substituting  a  residence  of  six  months  for  seven  and  making 
the  maximum  number  of  slaves  allowed  to  live  on  a  plan 
tation  without  a  white  man's  control  fifteen  instead  of  ten. 
Governor  Gist  in  his  annual  message  in  1859  recommended 
the  revisal  of  this  law  so  as  to  require  the  owner  to  reside 
on  his  plantation  during  the  whole  year.  The  provisions 
of  these  last  two  acts  did  not  and  were  not  intended  in  any 
way  to  supersede  the  former  act  of  1740.  The  latter  was 
to  apply  more  specifically  tp  the  small  plantations  while 
the  earlier  law  applied  to  the  larger  plantations. 

This  legislation  illustrates  sectional  differences  in  the 
state.  The  climatic  conditions  in  the  lowlands  encouraged 
the  development  of  large  plantations  with  but  few  whites 
on  them.  Further  to  the  north,  where  conditions  more 
favorable  to  the  white  man  prevailed,  the  two  races  were 
more  nearly  equal  in  numbers  and  the  smaller  farms  with 
few  negroes  were  to  be  found.  In  the  low  country  the 
independent  non-slaveholding  white  farmer  had  no  chance 
to  get  a  footing  on  account  of  the  struggle  with  disease  and 
the  competition  with  slave  labor  on  the  large  plantation. 
In  the  up-country  where  the  farms  were  smaller  in  size 
and  greater  in  number  and  climatic  conditions  were  more 
favorable  to  the  white  man  there  was  larger  opportunity 
to  secure  small  tracts  of  land  by  the  non-slaveholding 
white  man.  Some  of  these  acquired  a  few  slaves.  Ac 
cordingly  there  came  to  be  a  class  of  whites  either  non-slave 
holders  or  small  slave  owners  in  the  hilly  part  of  the  state 
that  formed  a  distinct  class  of  the  people  of  the  community 
characteristic  of  the  section.  In  contrast  there  was  almost 
no  such  class  to  be  found  in  the  lowlands,  where  the  only 
social  conditions  represented  were  the  slaves  and  their 
overseers  with  occasionally  an  owner  living  on  his  own 
plantation.  While  the  state  was  a  unit  in  its  general  slave 
policy  these  laws,  unnecessary  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
state,  illustrate  the  different  conditions  of  slavery  and  the 
consequent  different  methods  of  control  or  modification 
of  the  system  where  the  situation  was  decidedly  different. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  21 

Another  illustration  of  differences  in  legal  provisions 
arising  out  of  differences  of  conditions  in  the  two  sections 
of  the  colony  was  that  of  an  act  of  1740  virtually  suspending 
the  operation  of  the  patrol  service  in  parts  of  the  state 
where  whites  outnumbered  the  blacks.  This  exception 
applied  apparently  until  1819.  It  suffices  to  show  the 
recognition  of  differences  of  circumstances  and  dif 
ferences  of  needs  in  the  two  sections  of  the  state.  Owing 
to  the  spread  of  slavery  later  it  applied  to  comparatively 
few  districts,  but  the  neglect  of  patrol  duty  in  some  parts 
of  the  state  may  have  been  due  to  the  same  feeling  which 
led  to  this  enactment. 

The  question  arises  naturally,  how  well  were  these  laws 
enforced?  The  first  observation  to  be  made  is  that  it  was 
decidedly  to  the  interest  of  the  owner  both  financially  and 
from  the  point  of  maintaining  order  on  his  plantation  to 
keep  such  a  white  person  on  it.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
imagine  that  the  best  results  could  be  had  from  a  large 
plantation  entrusted  entirely  to  negroes.  And  yet  Olm- 
sted*on  one  particular  farm  in  South  Carolina  says  that 
the  owner  had  discussed  the  unsatisfactory  character  of 
most  overseers  and  had  said  that  he  depended  upon  his 
negro  drivers  and  kept  a  white  overseer  merely  to  carry 
out  the  mandates  of  the  law.  Perhaps  this  was  an  excep 
tion  to  the  general  rule.  It  is  more  likely  that  some  pe 
culiar  circumstances  prevented  compliance  in  cases  where 
it  was  not  observed  than  that  the  main  spirit  of  its  pro 
visions  was  ignored.  In  1852  bills  of  indictment  charging 
two  owners  with  not  keeping  white  men  on  their  planta 
tions  were  handed  to  the  grand  jury  of  Sumter  district 
but  were  returned  "no  bill."  There  is  also  the  case  of 
the  State  vs.  Blythe,  already  cited,  which  appears  (by  its 
having  been  carried  to  a  higher  court  on  appeal)  to  have 
gone  adversely  to  the  defendant. 

The  foregoing  illustrates  how  the  overseer  came  to  have 
legal  recognition.  We  now  come  to  some  discussion  of  the 
overseer  as  an  economic  and  social  factor  connected  with 
the  institution  of  slavery.  Most  of  the  laws  and  regu- 

*Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  66. 


22  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

lations  discussed  up  to  this  point  were  made  in  behalf 
of  those  who  might  have  no  interest  in  a  large  plantation 
and  yet  might  suffer  depredation  from  those  disorderly 
slaves  as  well  as  in  the  master's  interest,  and  for  the  general 
welfare  and  peaceable  orderliness  of  society.  We  now  have 
to  look  at  the  overseer  as  he  is  related  to  the  master  above 
and  the  slaves  below.  So  far  as  he  served  legitimately 
the  best  interests  of  both  he  was  a  factor  in  society  for  its 
well-being.  It  seems  that  the  overseer  was  a  misfit,  a 
makeshift,  and  there  never  grew  up  a  class  of  men  who 
found  this  middle  position  in  society  satisfactory  to  them 
selves  or  their  way  of  filling  it  satisfactory  to  the  slave 
owners.  Indeed,  there  was  nothing  in  the  position  to 
inspire,  for  even  the  salary  was  a  bare  living.  Stern  neces 
sity  often  forbade  even  a  tendency  toward  kindliness.  And 
on  the  other  side  there  was  much  in  the  calling  to  destroy 
the  finer  sensibilities  and  make  one  coarse  and  brutal. 
Indeed,  one  who  was  too  sympathetic  or  lax  was  likely  to 
be  swamped  by  the  barbarism  of  the  blacks.  Those  to 
whom  the  work  most  appealed  were,  perhaps,  the  least 
fitted  morally  and  temperamentally  for  the  position.  They 
usually  came  from  among  the  non-slaveholding,  non- 
propertied  class  of  whites  who  at  least  sometimes  may  have 
been  distrustful  if  not  jealous  of  the  slaveholder.  Over 
seeing  was  a  step  to  nothing.  The  overseer  was  not  often 
received  in  the  home  of  the  master  and  certainly  not  as 
an  equal,  and  he  had  few  associates  that  were  of  an  up 
lifting  character.  In  a  sense  he,  like  the  slave  he  controlled, 
found  no  hope  or  ambition  in  the  system. 

There  was  no  law  or  interpretation  of  the  courts  to  de 
fine  exactly  the  overseer's  status.  He  was  tacitly  regarded 
as  for  the  time  taking  the  place  of  the  master  in  his  paternal 
relation  of  duty  and  responsibility  to  the  slave.  He 
controlled  the  movements  of  the  slave,  furnishing  him  the 
necessary  pass  when  he  was  to  leave  the  plantation.  He 
had  all  the  rights  to  chastise  the  slaves  under  his  care 
that  the  master  had  except  as  limited  by  the  master.  He 
provided  for  the  slaves,  their  food  allowances  and  clothes 
and  everything  of  that  kind,  as  the  master  would  do  or 
as  the  master  from  time  to  time  directed.  The  property 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  23 

interest  of  the  master  in  his  slave  was  regarded  as  sufficient 
to  protect  the  slave  from  cruelty  at  the  hands  of  the  over 
seer  and  was  a  better  guarantee  than  were  the  laws  against 
the  cruelty  of  the  master  toward  his  own  slave.  Most 
masters  had  some  rules  more  or  less  elaborate  for  this 
purpose.  The  following  extract  from  one  of  these  contracts 
between  slaveowner  and  overseer  preserved  in  the  col 
lections  of  the  South  Carolina  Historical  Society  will 
illustrate  this  custom : 

"6th.     John  Ball   will  ever   reserve  to   himself  the 
right  to  discharge  and  turn  off  John  Penny  at  any  time 
of  the  year  if  he  gets  drunk,  or  improperly  abuses  his 
trust  ...  or    maltreat    the  negroes    under  his    care 
....     And   if  that  should  unfortunately  be  the  case 
....  John  Ball  will  pay  for  the  time  actually  served.  " 
But  it  is  here  probably  that  nothwithstanding  the  vigi 
lance  of  the  slaveowner,  there  crept  in  on  the  large  planta 
tion  much  of  the  cruelty  for  which  the  system  of  slavery 
has  aroused  so  much  criticism.     Not  that  all  overseers 
were  evil-minded  but  that  there  often  did  arise  provocation 
to  undeserved  punishment.     And  sometimes  the  revenge 
of  the  slaves  was  wreaked  upon  the  overseer.     The  Inde 
pendent  Press,  of  Abbeville,  on  Aug  5,  1854,  notes  the  mur 
der  of  an  overseer  by  three  negroes  in  Abbeville  district, 
and  on  June  17,  1854,  the  murder  of  an  overseer  in  New- 
berry  district  by  a  slave. 

But  we  shall  allow  selections  from  periodicals  of  the 
time  and  other  sources  to  speak  for  themselves.  The 
following  advertisement  appended  to  another  notice  in 
the  South  Carolina  Gazette,  of  November  7,  1741,  suggests 
that  there  were  some  who  took  advantage  of  their  position 
as  overseer  for  evil: 

"A  good  overseer  is  wanted  and  shall  have  good  en 
couragement,  in  case  he  understands  plantation  affairs 
and  can  behave  himself  well  and  be  honest." 
The  following  " Wanted"  gives  us  a  pretty  clear  idea 
of  the  qualifications  that  the  owner  desired  the  overseer 
to  haveif 

\City  Gazette  and  Daily  Advertiser,  Dec.  1,  1800. 


24  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

"The  subscriber  would  give  good  encouragement 
to  a  man  of  the  following  description:  a  good  cotton 
and  rice  planter,  sober,  honest,  industrious,  attentive 
and  constantly  on  the  plantation;  who  understands 
the  management  of  negroes,  to  be  worked  with  at 
tention,  steadiness  and  at  the  same  time  to  be  treated 
with  humanity  and  care.  No  other  person  to  be  em 
ployed  and  therefore  any  other  application  will  be 
needless." 
A  contributor  to  the  Carolina  Planter  of  February  19, 

1840,  sets  this  down  as  some  of  the  questions  an  overseer 

ought  to  have  asked  him: 

"Whether   he  is   an  attentive,  careful  and  humane 

man?     Will  he  treat    negroes   well?     Keep    up   their 

spirit?     Attend  to  the  sick;  favor  the  weakly?     Take 

care  of  the  women  and  children?" 

An  ex-overseer  gives  to  men  of  his  former  calling  the 

following  advice  as  to  discipline,  which  gives  us  a  good 

picture  of  control  on  the  plantation  :f 

"It  is  indispensable  that  you  exercise  judgment 
and  consideration  in  the  management  of  the  negroes 
under  your  charge.  Be  firm  and  at  the  same  time 
gentle  in  your  control.  Never  display  yourself  before 
them  in  a  passion;  and  even  in  inflicting  the  severest 
punishment,  do  so  in  a  mild,  cool  manner,  and  it  will 
produce  a  ten-fold  effect.  When  you  find  it  necessary 
to  use  the  whip  (and  as  desirable  as  it  would  be  to 
dispense  with  it  entirely  it  is  necessary  at  times)  apply 
it  slowly  and  deliberately  to  the  extent  that  you  are 
determined  in  your  own  mind  to  be  needful  before 
you  begin.  The  indiscriminate,  constant  and  ex 
cessive  use  of  the  whip  is  altogether  unnecessary  and 
inexcusable.  When  it  can  be  done  without  a  too 
great  loss  of  time  the  stocks  offer  a  means  of  punish 
ment  greatly  to  be  preferred.  Never  threaten  a  negro, 
but  if  you  have  occasion  to  punish  do  it  at  once,  or 
say  nothing  until  ready  to  do  so.  A  passionate  and 
violent  threat  will  often  scare  the  best  disposed  negro 

|The  Farmer  and  Planter,  June,  1857. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  25 

to  the  woods.  Always  keep  your  word  with  them 
in  punishments  as  well  as  rewards.  Never  forgive 
that  in  one  which  you  would  punish  in  another, 
but  treat  all  alike,  showing  no  favoritism.  Never 
be  induced  by  a  course  of  good  behavior  by  the 
negroes  to  relax  the  strictness  of  your  discipline;  but 
when  you  have,  by  judicious  management,  brought 
them  to  that  state  keep  them  there  by  that  means. 
The  only  way  to  keep  a  negro  honest  is  not  to  trust 
him.  This  seems  a  harsh  assertion  but  it  is  un 
fortunately  true." 

Another  by  "Decater,"  who  from  his  manner  of  talk 
is  also  an  ex-overseer,  in  the  course  of  a  lengthy  article 
in  the  same  periodical  of  January,  1855,  drops  this  sig 
nificant  remark  as  to  plantation  control: 

"Let  them  know  that  you  have  a  good  feeling  to 
wards  them  and  they  are  sure  to  respect  you  and  obey 
you  and  do  it  willingly.  I  have  found  it  difficult  to  do 
business  successfully  with  them  when  I  have  to  force 
everything  out  of  them  by  the  lash." 
The  following  very  significant  characterization  of  the 
situation  was  made  by  W.  B.  Seabrook  in  an  address  before 
the  United  Agricultural  Society  of  South  Carolina  in  1827  :* 
"In  general  the  planter  entrusts  the  sole  manage 
ment  of  his  domestic  concerns  to  some  needy  wan 
derer  who,  without  education,  without  morals  or  the 
incentive  of  honorable  emulation,  assumes  the  master 
ship  of  a  business  at  once  complicated  in  its  details  and 
requiring  the  unwearied  exercise  of  a  sound  discretion  to 
conduct  it  safely  through  the  ordeal  of  its  own  peculiar 
composition.  Oftentimes  twenty  or  thirty  competent 
overseers  exercise  an  unlimited  control  over  a  whole 
district  [now  called  county]  comprising  thousands  of 
laborers.  In  their  hands  is  truly  for  a  time,  the 
whole  fortune  of  their  employers.  Their  ignorance 
cannot  advance  it;  their  indiscretion  may  forever 
blast  it  and  peradventure  shake  the  state  to  its 
center.  .  .  .  [Footnote  made  on  revisal  of  address  for 

*Pamphlet,   Charleston   Library. 


26  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

publication  is  as  follows:]     To  the  gloomy  description 
here    given    of   our    overseers    there    are    many    and 
honorable  exceptions;  and    I    state    with    pride    and 
pleasure,  that  as  a  class  they  are  gradually  improving 
in    morals,    education    and    general  worth." 
A  Carolina  planter  is  quoted  by  Olmsted*  to  the  effect 
that  it  was  more  common  for  an  overseer  to  indulge  the 
slaves  in  their  idleness  in  order  to  win  their  favor  and  thus 
prevent   their  disclosing  his   faults  than   it  was  to  whip 
them   too  severely.     Similarly  is   Mr.   Louis   Manigault's 
experience  as  quoted  from  his  plantation  record  by  Profes 
sor  Phillipsj  as  a  special  instance  of  an  overseer  who  had 
broken  "long  established  discipline"  by   undignified  famili 
arity  with  the  slaves. 

On  the  other  hand  a  contributor  to  The  Carolina  Planter 
of  February  19,  1840,  already  referred  to,  finds  other  dif 
ficulties.  His  idea  is  that  the  overseer  often  drives  the 
slaves  too  hard  in  order  to  make  a  good  showing;  or  again 
the  scarcity  of  even  "tolerable  overseers"  makes  it  im 
possible  to  lay  down  strict  rules  for  the  welfare  of  the  slaves. 
There  seems  to  have  been  a  common  complaint  as  to  the 
poor  character  of  the  men  who  were  overseers  by  "undue 
prejudice  indulged  against  this  people"  and  the  poor 
salaries.§  "A  City  Rustic,"  in  the  Charleston  Mercury 
of  October  6,  1829,  indicates  that  oversight  of  too  many 
negroes  for  one  leads  to  inefficiency,  carelessness  and  down 
right  dishonesty  of  the  overseer  and  that  there  resulted 
possibly  a  twenty-five  per  cent,  leakage  of  the  gross  pro 
ceeds. 

On  the  plantation  there  was  another  manager  of  quasi- 
official  character  who  had  to  do  with  its  management  and 
particularly  with  the  control  of  its  negroes.  This  was  the 
negro  driver  chosen  from  among  the  slaves  themselves. 
He  was  a  sort  of  intermediary  between  the  laboring  slave 

*Seabord  Slave  States,  p.  67. 

fOrigin  and  Growth  of  the  Black  Belt,  American  Historical  Review, 
XI,  p.  806,  footnote. 

§Jas.  Barbour:  Address  before  Agri.  Society  (reprinted),  Charleston 
Mercury,  Dec.  12,  1825. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  27 

and  the  owerseer  or  his  master.  He  was  trusted  in  varying 
degrees.  Often  he  carried  the  keys  and  was  looked  upon 
as  a  necessary  though  undesirable  adjunct  of  the  planta 
tion.  His  duties  are  so  well  described  in  the  rules  laid 
down  by  P.  C.  Weston  for  the  management  of  his  rice 
plantation  that  we  shall  quote  :f 

"  Drivers  are  under  the  overseer  to  maintain  discip 
line  and  order  on  the  place.  They  are  to  be  respon 
sible  for  the  quiet  of  the  negro  houses,  for  the  proper 
performance  of  tasks,  for  bringing  out  the  people  early 
in  the  morning,  and  generally  for  the  immediate  in 
spection  of  such  things  as  the  overseer  generally  super 
intends."  [It  is  also  added  that  he  sees  that  tasks 
are  satisfactorily  completed.]* 

The  negro  driver  was  looked  upon  as  a  mild  innovation  by 
those  who  did  not  have  such  an  organization.  And  it  is 
unquestioned  that  the  opportunities  and  liberties  which 
he  had  he  sometimes  abused.  In  a  news  note  in  the  Abbe 
ville  Banner  of  February  18,  1848,  is  mentioned  the  murder 
of  two  negroes  by  drivers.  It  is  not  to  be  imagined  that 
the  driver  often  abused  his  privileges,  for  it  was  by  faithful 
services  that  he  rose  to  his  superior  position.  He  might 
have  been  very  much  disliked  by  the  other  slaves,  and 
might  have  given  good  reason  for  such  an  unfavorable  im 
pression  upon  them.  But  would  the  slaveowners  have 
long  tolerated  a  system  which  was  wholly  bad?  We  shall 
here  quote  from  an  article  by  a  "City  Rustic"  in  the 
Charleston  Mercury  of  October  2,  1829,  for  what  it  is  worth 
as  evidence,  though  the  picture  is  certainly  much  over 
drawn  : 

"From  these  causes  [i.  e.,  poor  supply  of  good  over 
seers]  and  from  the  consequent  and  unavoidable  system 
of  management  necessarily  and  long  adopted  through 
out  the  lower  country,  the  small  planters  and  their 
property  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  black  drivers, 

tWritten  for  DeBow's  Review,  XXII,  42. 

*Professor  Hart  refers  to  another  distinction,  "Slavery  and  Abo 
lition,"  p.  120,  which  the  writer  has  not  been  able  to  verify  though 
probably  correct — "foreman"  being  really  a  slave  overseer. 


28  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

a  set  of  men  which  there  does  not  exist  on  the  face  of 
the  earth  any  on  whom  there  can  be  placed  less  de 
pendence.  Practiced  in  every  species  of  deception  from 
their  infancy;  leagued  together  far  and  near  by  com 
mon  interest,  and  having  all  the  more  intelligent  and 
finished  thieves  in  the  neighborhood  under  their  arbi 
trary  control,  it  is  not  strange  that  every  avenue  to 
information  should  be  closely  shut  between  the  some 
times  oppressed  slave  or  the  still  rarer  honest  one,  and 
the  suffering  and  deluded  master;  and  that  a  state 
productive  of  the  complete  demoralization  of  negroes, 
with  all  of  its  destructive  consequences,  should  be 
the  inevitable  result." 


CHAPTER  IV 
The  Patrol  System 

Almost  from  the  very  first  the  slave  population  pre 
sented  the  problem  of  a  police  control  that  would  suit 
the  needs  of  the  community  and  hold  in  check  this  irre 
sponsible  and  often  dangerous  part  of  Southern  society. 
For  the  more  serious  crimes  methods  of  trial  and  punish 
ment  were  provided.  But  for  the  general  good-ordering 
and  home-keeping  of  the  slave  some  more  exacting  method 
must  be  employed  than  mere  punishment  by  a  court  which 
the  negro  very  little  understood.  If  the  slave  had  been 
unhampered  in  his  general  movements  he  would  have  been 
rendered  capable  of  insurrection,  the  greatest  possible 
danger  to  be  feared  from  the  African  population.  To  this 
one  must  add  the  smaller  fights,  broils  and  disorders  they 
would  probably  have  had  with  each  other  if  allowed  to 
go  from  plantation  to  plantation  without  restraint.  Finally 
the  master  would  find  the  slave  much  less  efficient  if  allowed 
the  loss  of  sleep  and  energy  incident  to  such  carousing. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  29 

But  while  this  aimless  wandering  about  of  the  slave 
was  unauthorized  there  were  various  errands  both  by  day 
and  by  night  desired  by  the  master.  Again  it  often  oc 
curred  that  the  slave  living  on  one  plantation  had  as  his 
accepted  wife  a  negro  woman  living  on  another  planta 
tion.  This  marriage  relationship  was  recognized  both  by 
the  master  and  the  negro  man  on  the  one  side  and  the 
master  and  the  negro  woman  on  the  other.  Wednesday 
and  Saturday  nights*  he  was  usually  allowed  to  be  away 
from  his  cabin  on  a  visit  to  his  wife.  It  was  evident  that 
there  must  be  some  regulation  to  permit  and  authorize 
this  if  there  was  to  be  a  general  prohibition  of  wandering. 
The  rule  was  that  no  slave  should  be  found  off  his  master's 
plantation,  particularly  at  night,  without  a  written  pass 
from  his  master,  or  in  company  with  some  white  person, 
even  a  child  ten  years  of  age,  who  could  vouch  for  the 
cause  of  his  absence.  The  substance  of  the  pass  was  an 
order  to  any  person  or  patrolman  to  permit  the  slave 
"to  pass  and  repass"  from  a  given  hour  on  a  certain  day 
to  a  given  hour  on  some  following  day.  The  law  of  1734f 
made  it  necessary  that  the  pass  show  the  destination  of  the 
slave  and  if  he  rides  a  horse  it  was  to  be  so  stated.  It 
appears,  however,  that  the  pass  usually  gave  permission 
merely  to  the  slave  to  be  absent  from  the  plantation  for  a 
given  length  of  time.  And  even  if  such  permit  was  not  all 
that  was  understood  to  be  legally  required,  it  was  generally 
accepted  as  sufficient  by  the  patrol.  Later  the  Constitu 
tional  Court  decided§  that  a  pass  did  not  have  to  indicate 
the  destination  of  the  slave.  But  the  law  was  that  a  general 
pass  intended  to  be  good  over  a  long  period  of  time  to  per 
mit  the  free  coming  and  going  of  the  slave  would  not  be 
recognized  by  the  patrol,  nor  were  they  authorized  to 
accept  uch  a  pass,  as  its  purpose  was  to  evade  the  spirit 
of  the  patrol  police  laws  by  the  master.  The  frequency 
of  complaints  like  the  following  suggests  that  the  law 
was  not  observed.  In  a  communication  appearing  in 

Testimony  of  ante-bellum  people  still  living. 

tStatutes  at  Large,  III,  396,  sec.  2. 

§2  Nott  &  McCord,  113:     Hogg  vs.  Keller,  decided^  1819, 


30  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

The  Daily  Telegraph  of  Nov.  4,  1848,  as  to  the  policing  of 
the  negroes  occurs  this  statement  as  to  passes: 

"A  'general  pass'  (as  it  is  called)  to  enable  a  slave 
to  go  at  large,  when  and  where  he  pleases,  is  an 
outrage  on  the  community,  illegal  in  itself  and  will 
no  longer  be  recognized.  With  a  proper  and  specific 
pass  a  slave  is  always  safe." 
Concerning  which  the  editor  remarks: 

"We  hardly  deem  it  necessary  to  say  one  word  on 
the  subject  of  passes  or  permits;  it   must   be  obvious 
to  every  one,  that  where  they  neither  limit  the  bearer 
to  time  or  place,   gross  abuses   must  necessarily   arise 
under  them;  and   we   presume   all   such    passes   are 
illegal,  and  therefore  will  be  disregarded." 
The  free  movement  of  the  slaves  concerned  not  only  the 
immediate  owner  but  every  other  individual  in  the  com 
munity  as  well,  for  it  afforded  opportunity  to  the  slave  to 
instigate  and   co-operate  in  insurrectionary  schemes;  also 
it  afforded  opportunity  for  stealing,  the  colored  person's 
inherent   weakness.     Often    these    passes   were    given   by 
members  of  the  master's  family  with,  of  course,  the  master's 
tacit  consent,  the  latter's  name  appearing  on  the  permit. 
Any  person  who  forged  a  pass  was  to  be  severely  punished, 
the  maximum  penalty  being  $1,000  fine  and  twelve  months 
imprisonment.*     The    sessions    journal    of    Maryborough 
district  in  1853  records  the  trial  and  acquittal  of  a  white 
man  for  giving  a  ticket  to  the  slave  of  another.     He  had 
been  held  for  trial  under  a  bond  for  $1,000.     It  is  probable 
that  there  was  a  suspicion  of  his  aiding  in  the  escape  of 
the  slave  as  this  was  a  common  way  of  getting  the  slave 
out  of  the  community.     Another  similar  case  occurred  in 
Greenville  1847  but  neither  appears  to  have  come  to  trial. 
The  written  pass  was  not  required  by  day  in  the  incor 
porated  towns.     The  slaves  were  allowed  to  go  about  from 
place  to  place  in  town  in  the  day  time  on  errands  of  the 
master,  most  of  the  slaves  being  known  to  the  local  police 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  552, 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  31 

force.  But  at  night  after  nine  o'clock  it  was  necessary 
for  them  to  have  a  permit  from  the  master,  f 

The  evolution  of  the  patrol  system  is  interesting.  The 
need  of  keeping  the  slaves  from  roving  was  felt  from  the 
very  first.  Among  the  earliest  of  the  colonial  acts  in  1686  is 
one*  that  gave  any  person  the  right  to  apprehend,  properly 
chastise,  and  send  home  any  slave  who  might  be  found  off 
his  master's  plantation  without  a  ticket.  This  plan  was 
not  altogether  effective,  and  in  1690§  it  was  made  the  duty 
of  all  persons  under  penalty  of  forty  shillings  to  arrest 
and  chastise  any  slave  out  of  his  home  plantation  without 
a  proper  ticket.  This  plan  of  making  it  everybody's 
business  to  punish  wandering  slaves  seems  to  have  been 
sufficient  at  least  for  a  time. 

In  1704  the  governor  and  council  passed  a  law  that  in 
time  of  public  danger  when  the  forces  of  the  colony  were 
likely  to  be  drawn  toward  the  coast  for  defense  the  general 
of  all  the  forces  should  appoint  from  each  company  of 
militia  one  or  more  captains  who,  on  the  nomination  of 
the  general,  shall  each  select  ten  men  uto  ride"  the  districts, 
taking  up  any  strolling  negroes  that  might  be  found  off 
their  master's  plantation  without  a  ticket.  It  would 
appear  then  that  the  interest  in  the  common  good  made 
the  patrol  provisions  of  the  act  of  1690  as  yet  all  that  was 
needed;  or  we  are  to  guess  that  the  negroes  were  more  or 
less  orderly,  and  that  it  was  in  time  of  ''alarm"  that  they 
were  disorderly  or  then  that  the  danger  from  insurrection 
was  greatest.  The  preamble  of  the  act  of  1704t  stated 
its  purposes  to  be  "to  prevent  such  insurrections  and  mis 
chiefs  as  from  the  great  number  of  slaves  we  have  reason 
to  suspect  may  happen  when  the  greater  part  of  the  in 
habitants  are  drawn  together."  This  probably  accounts 
for  the  old  name  sometimes  applied  to  the  patrolmen, 
"alarm  men." 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VIII,  538,  sec.  11. 
*Statutes  at  Large,  II,  22. 
^Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  343. 
^Statutes  at  Large  II,  254. 


32  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Caroline 

This  also  explains  how  the  police  patrol  came  to  be  a 
part  of  the  military.  The  act  of  1721*  merged  the  patrol 
service  definitely  into  the  militia  organization,  making 
it  a  part  of  the  military  system,  and  devolving  upon  the 
military  authority  its  arrangement  and  maintenance. 
This  feature  was  continued  until  1860.  The  reason  for 
the  arrangement  is  cited  in  the  preamble  of  the  act: 

"Whereas  the  several  patrols  in  this  province  gener 
ally  consist  of  the  choicest  and  best  men,  who  screen 
themselves  from  doing  such  services  in  alarms  as  are 
required  and  ought  to  be  done  by  men  of  their  ability 
which  creates  great  murmurings  and  disturbances  in 
the  militia  in  this  Province." 

Apparently  efforts  to  evade  patrol  service  were  common. 
Indeed,  it  was  a  thankless  task  throughout  the  reign  of 
the  landlord  slaveholder. 

In  1734f  a  regular  patrol,  by  act  of  the  Provincial 
Assembly,  was  organized,  reciting  in  its  preamble  the  reasons 
and  needs  therefor  as  follows: 

"Whereas  former  acts  of  the  assembly  passed  in 
the  province  for  regulating  patrols  have  not  answered 
the  intention  thereof  and  it  being  highly  necessary  to 
the  well  being  of  the  province  that  the  several  patrols 
should  be  rendered  as  useful  as  possible  in  the  keeping 
all  slaves  in  due  order." 

The  provisions  of  this  act  form  the  basis  of  all  later 
patrol  legislation.  Later  acts  modified  and  elaborated 
this  primitive  law,  but  the  main  principles  of  the  patrol 
system  as  herein  expressed  for  the  next  century  and  a  quarter 
remained  the  same.  The  "beat  company" — by  which  is 
meant  the  group  of  five  men  who  rode  over  the  plantations 
and  looked  after  the  correction  of  disorders — was  to  be 
composed  of  a  captain  and  four  other  men  of  the  regular 
militia  appointed  from  time  to  time.  The  patrolmen 
were  to  receive  compensation,  the  captain  £50  per  annum 
and  each  of  the  others  £25,  and  exemption  from  all  other 
military  service.  For  each  district  there  were  to  be  ap- 

*Statutes  at  Large,  IX,  639,  sec.  26. 
fStatutes  at  Large,  III,  395. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  33 

pointed  three  commissioners  as  supervisors  of  the  patrol. 

The  duties  of  this  patrol  were  to  visit  each  plantation 
in  its  beat  at  least  once  per  month,  chastising  any  slave 
found  absenting  himself  from  home  without  a  pass,  ad 
ministering  twenty  lashes  as  a  maximum;  to  search  the 
negro  dwellings,  confiscating  any  firearms  that  might  be 
in  the  home  or  any  goods  that  they  might  have  good  reason 
to  believe  have  been  stolen;  to  enter  any  tippling  house 
or  any  other  house  whatever,  where  any  one  of  them  might 
have  seen  a  slave  enter.  Any  fowls  or  provisions  found  in  the 
hands  of  any  negro  who  is  away  from  home  without  a 
ticket  might  be  appropriated  to  the  patrolman's  own  use. 

The  provincial  acts  usually  expired  after  three  years. 
Hence  this  law  was  re-enacted  in  1737*  with  some  changes. 
By  the  later  act  ministers  were  exempt  from  serving  on 
the  patrol;  the  patrolmen  chose  their  own  captain;  visits 
on  duty  were  to  be  once  every  week  so  as  to  reach  every 
plantation  at  least  once  each  month;  confiscated  goods 
were  to  be  delivered  to  the  commissioners  of  the  patrol. 
It  was  also  provided  that  in  case  any  information  of  a 
cabal  or  any  kind  of  unlawful  meeting  of  negroes  should 
come  to  the  ears  of  any  officer  of  the  patrol  or  militia  ho 
might  summon,  on  penalty  for  failure,  a  number  of  persons 
necessary  for  dispersing  the  same.  A  more  significant 
change,  however,  was  one  limiting  the  choice  of  patrolmen 
to  fifty-acre  freeholders  or  forty-shilling  tax  payers;  to 
this  was  attached  the  following  proviso:  "provided  always 
that  the  said  commissioners  shall  not  enlist  any  person  as 
a  voluntary  patrolman. "f  We  are  left  here  to  conjecture 
whether  irresponsible  persons  had  been  attracted  by  the 
pay  which  must  have  been  considerable  for  that  time  and 
hence  had  caused  dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  the  owners; 
or  that  others  who  had  no  intimate  interest  in  the  slave 
property  of  the  community  joined  in  voluntarily  as  on  a 
holiday  excursion  or  for  the  purpose  of  wreaking  vengeance 
for  an  imaginary  or  real  grievance. 

*Statutes  at  Large,  III,  456. 

fSec.  2.  The  act  of  1740  also  devolved  the  duty  of  patrol  service 
only  on  slaveowners  or  overseers. 


34  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

The  patrol  act  of  1740f  stated,  in  section  10— 

"Many  irregularities  have  been  committed  by 
former  patrols  arising  chiefly  from  their  drinking  too 
much  liquor  before  or  during  the  time  of  their  riding 
on  duty." 

From  this  it  would  appear  that  even  at  best  there  was  often 
considerable  disorderly  conduct  among  the  patrolmen, 
and  some  of  the  "irregularities"  may  have  been  unauthor 
ized  whipping  of  slaves  who  were  duly  provided  with 
passes,  or  undue  disturbance  of  slaves  who  were  peaceably 
at  home.  These  were  grievances  that  slaveowners  of  a 
later  day  resented.  At  this  time  there  may  have  been 
considerable  distrust  of  the  non-slaveholder  by  the  slave 
holder,  or,  this  exclusion  of  the  non-shaveholder  may  have 
been  to  relieve  him  of  services  in  a  cause  for  which  he  was 
not  responsible. 

When  the  time  for  re-enacting  the  patrol  law  came  again 
in  1740,  just  following  the  Stono  insurrection,  a  general 
tightening  up  of  the  slave  regulations  was  indulged  in  as 
well  as  a  general  revision  of  the  negro  law.  By  the  pro 
visions  of  this  law  the  captain  of  the  militia  company  was 
to  keep  a  list  of  all  persons  liable  for  patrol  duty,  those  not 
owning  or  being  interested  in  a  slave  sixteen  years  old  to 
he  excepted,  while  female  slaveowners  were  required  to 
furnish  a  substitute.  The  ridings  in  each  beat  were  not 
to  include  any  circuit  of  more  than  fifteen  miles.  The 
captain  was  required  at  each  muster  to  "prick  off"  a  cer 
tain  number,  not  more  than  seven,  located  near  together, 
to  do  patrol  duty  until  the  next  muster.  If  any  person 
should  fail  to  respond  for  duty,  the  captain  was  authorized 
to  employ  a  substitute  at  thirty  shillings  per  night  to  be 
collected  from  the  defaulter  by  action  for  debt.  A  sub 
stitute  of  an  age  between  sixteen  and  sixty  years  could 
be  sent  by  a  regular  patrolman.  This  act  was  not  to  apply 
where  the  whites  were  in  numbers  superior  to  the  blacks. 
Mention  was  here  made  of  the  switch  or  cowhide  as  the 

fNot  the  great  Negro  Law,  but  a  separate  act:  Statutes  at  Large, 
III,  473. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  35 

instrument  with  which  the  castigation  was  to  be  admin 
istered,  f 

The  patrol  laws  seem  to  have  remained  practically  un 
touched  from  1740  to  1819.  Perhaps  the  difficulty,  if 
any,  lay  in  their  administration.  For  example  the  Charles 
ton  grand  jury  in  1766  said:* 

"We  present  as  a  general  grievance  through  the 
province  the  want  of  patrol  duty  being  duly  done, 
and  submit  to  the  legislature  whether  a  provincial 
or  parochial  tax  to  support  the  expense  of  a  standing 
patrol  to  be  on  constant  duty  would  not  better  answer 
the  purpose  of  apprehending  slaves." 
In  1772  the  grand  jury  at  the  court  held  in  Camden  said:§ 
"We  present  as  a  Grievance  the  Patrol  Act  not 
being  put  in  Force,  whereby  many  Villanies  and  Rob 
beries  are  committed  which  otherwise  in  a  great  meas 
ure  might  be  prevented." 

Governor  Dray  ton  in  his  annual  message  in  1800  suggested 
the  patrol  laws  as  a  proper  subject  for  revision.  Governor 
Hamilton  in  his  annual  message  in  1805,  speaking  of  the 
patrol  laws,  said: 

"It  is  a  fact  that  in  the  lower  parts  of  the  state, 
where  regulations  of  this  kind  are  particularly  needed, 
those  who  are  most  interested  in  the  preservation  of 
peace  and  order,  have,  from  a  mistaken  notion  of 
things,  thrown  the  whole  of  this  burden  on  others  less 
fortunately  circumstanced,  on  whom  alone  the  present 
penalty  is  coercive.  Permit  me,  therefore,  to  recom 
mend  the  imposition  of  a  fine  for  default,  in  proportion 
of  the  property  of  the  individual,  to  be  rated  by  his 
tax  return,  as  in  the  case  for  non-performance  of  militia 
duty." 
Again  the  next  year  he  somewhat  elaborated  the  same 

f  This  was,  it  might  here  be  mentioned,  the  officially  recognized  method 
of  whipping  the  slave.  See  1  Nott  &  McCord  (Law),  279:  Bell  vs. 
Graham,  decided  in  1818;  2  Nott  &  McCord  (Law),  113:  Hogg  vs. 
Keller,  decided  in  1819. 

*South  Carolina  Gazette,  June  2,  1766. 

SSouth  Carolina  Gazette,  Dec.  10,  1772. 


36  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

idea,  prefacing  his  remark  with  a  statement  possibly  ex 
aggerated,  it  is  true,  since  the  legislature  seems  to  have 
thought  the  patrol  laws  quite  sufficient  for  the  next  thirteen 
years.  He  said: 

'The  last  of  which  [the  patrol  laws]  is  so  deficient 
as  to  coercive  principle,  that  it  has  become  a  thing 
merely  without  effect." 

In  1816  Governor  Williams  was  led  by  two  attempted 
insurrections  in  the  year  just  passed  to  seek  a  remedy  in 
some  amendment  of  the  laws  and  a  general  tightening  up 
of  the  regulations.  He  says: 

"These  incidents  [the  Camden  and  Ashepoo  attempts 
at  insurrection]  admonish  us  to  a  careful  revisal  of 
our  patrol  system.  Perhaps  the  agents  selected  for 
its  execution  are  proper;  but  the  responsibility  under 
which  they  act  is  believed  to  be  inadequate  to  a  just  ad 
ministration  of  it.  If  the  duties  to  be  performed  by  the 
agents  are  to  be  considered  of  a  military  nature 
wholly,  as  by  some  they  have  been,  no  evil  could 
result  from  having  superior  officers  to  superintend 
their  execution;  if  of  a  civil  character,  the  aid  of  the 
court  of  law  might  be  successfully  resorted  to,  by 
adding  an  additional  clause  in  the  oath  administered 
to  the  grand  jurors." 

But  for  a  general  revision  of  the  patrol  laws  the  General 
Assembly  waited  until  1819.  By  the  act  of  the  legisla 
ture  of  that  year*  all  white  males  over  eighteen  were  made 
liable  for  patrol  duty,  the  non-slaveholders  being  excused 
from  service  after  reaching  the  age  of  forty-five.  Sub 
stitutes  from  eighteen  to  sixty  years  old  could  be  sent  by 
persons  liable  for  service.  Governor  Hamilton's  sugges 
tion,  made  thirteen  years  before,  was  embodied  in  the  act 
by  fixing  the  penalty  for  non-performance  of  patrol  duty 
at  a  fine  of  $2.00  plus  ten  per  cent  of  the  delinquent's 
last  tax  levy.  This  was  sufficient  to  reach  the  person 
whose  wealth  made  a  mere  fine  of  $2.00  light.  A  patrol 
man  finding  arms  in  a  slave's  house  was  allowed  to  appro- 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VIII,  538,  sec.  2. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  37 

priate  them  to  his  own  use  by  making  oath  before  a  magis 
trate  as  to  the  manner  of  their  seizure  after  the  owner  of 
the  slave  had  had  an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  To  pre 
serve  the  orderliness  of  the  patrol  while  on  duty  a  fine  of 
$5.00  was  to  be  imposed  by  his  military  superior  upon  a 
captain  of  patrol  for  misbehavior  and  a  fine  of  $2.00  upon 
a  private  patrolman  for  disorderliness  or  disobedience 
to  the  orders  of  the  captain.  The  act  also  provided  for 
imposing  a  fine  of  $5. 00  upon  a  person  for  beating  a  negro 
unlawfully,  that  is  one  who  was  either  quietly  at  home 
or  was  travelling  with  a  ticket.  These  provisions  as  to 
the  patrol  were  made  not  to  apply  within  an  incorporated 
town.  To  make  the  operations  of  the  patrol  as  unhampered 
as  possible  it  was  enacted  that  any  person  prosecuting  the 
patrols  for  any  act  of  theirs  in  the  performance  of  their 
duty,  in  case  the  prosecutor  should  lose  his  case,  should 
forfeit  a  sum  three  times  the  costs.  The  captain  of  each 
beat  company  was  to  make  a  return  at  stated  times  to 
his  superior  officers  of  the  militia  as  to. how  the  duties  of 
the  patrolmen  entrusted  to  him  had  been  performed  on 
penalty  of  a  fine  of  $20  for  failure.  In  at  least  one  case 
such  a  penalty  was  enforced  by  a  court  martial  which  was 
declared  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  1840  to  be  the  proper 
kind  of  procedure.* 

Another  apparently  unfortunate  provision  permitted 
any  person  to  act  in  the  capacity  of  a  patrolman  in  ad 
ministering  punishment  if  at  any  time  he  should  find  a 
slave  out  of  his  home  place.  This  probably  led  to  abuses 
and  was  finally  abolished  in  1839.§  Beating  a  slave  who 
was  found  away  from  his  master's  premises  but  who  had  a 
ticket  was  to  be  construed  legally  as  abusing  a  slave,  f 

To  summarize  a  few  phases  of  the  development  of  the 
patrol  system  will  serve  to  unify  what  has  been  given 

*1  McMullen  (Law),  69,  Ex  parte  Diggers. 

§Another  patrol  law  was  enacted  in  1839  (Statutes  at  Large,  XI, 
64),  the  provisions  of  which  are  practically  like  that  of  1819  except  as 
is  here  indicated  and  in  that  it  made  a  general  provision  for  the  control 
and  regulation  of  the  patrol  in  the  cities  by  the  municipal  authorities. 

|1  McMullan  (Law),  275:     Caldwell  vs.  Langford,  decided  in  1841. 


38  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

somewhat  in  detail.  To  correct  the  strolling  slave,  al 
lowed  as  a  privilege  to  the  white  man  at  first,  was  soon  after 
wards  made  his  duty.  As  a  precaution  against  disturbances 
from  the  negroes  in  times  of  public  danger  when  the  num 
ber  of  the  white  settlers  was  small  a  detachment  of  the 
militia  was  authorized  "to  ride"  the  districts.  The  same 
kind  of  policing  in  times  of  peace  was  found  to  be  necessary 
as  early  as  1734.  The  practicability  of  the  use  of  civilians 
for  this  purpose  under  a  military  organization  known  as 
the  "beat  company"  was  soon  demonstrated.  Limita 
tions  of  the  service  to  freeholders  with  compensation  were 
removed  in  1819  and  all  white  males  were  made  liable  for 
duty  without  compensation.  Apparently  evasion  of  duty 
was  common ;  disorderliness  of  the  patrol  was  unfortunately 
frequent;  at  times  interference  with  the  patrol  in  the  per 
formance  of  their  duties  occurred.  All  of  these  weaknesses 
the  act  of  1819  sought  to  overcome  and  in  large  measure 
by  this  act  the  system  was  perfected. 

The  proper  enforcement  of  the  patrol  laws  was  at  all 
times  the  difficult  feature  of  the  police  control  of  the  slaves. 
In  1820,  the  year  following  the  enactment  of  the  elaborate 
patrol  law  of  1819,  Governor  Geddes  in  his  annual  message 
says : 

"The  patrol  .duty  which  is  so  intimately  connected 
with  the  good  order  and  police  of  the  state,  is  still 
so  greatly  neglected   in  several  of  our  parishes  and 
districts,   that  serious  inconveniences  have  been  felt 
and  cannot  fail  to  continue,  unless  additional  amend 
ments  are  made  to  the  law  on  this  subject,  as  the  per 
formance  of  the  duty  it  imposes  cannot  be  enforced." 
No  new  law  followed  as  the  result  of  this  recommendation, 
the   Legislature   probably    realizing   that    there   was   but 
little  that  additional  enactment  could  accomplish.     Time 
alone  could  accustom  men  to  the  more  formally  imposed 
duties.     In  the  spring  of   1823  an  indictment  was  brought 
in  Union  district  for  "Neglect  of  duty  as  Capt.  of  Patrols" 
and  the  defendant  was  convicted  in  the  fall  of  the  next 
year,  the  sentence  being  a  fine  of  $20  and  the  costs  of  the 
prosecution;  the  record  shows  that  the  fine  was  paid.     It 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  39 

is  significant  that  this  is  the  only  incident  of  a  conviction 
for  non-performance  of  patrol  duty  that  the  available 
criminal  records  of  the  nine  counties  visited  by  the  writer 
revealed.  As  late  as  1853  the  following  appears  in  the 
presentment  of  the  Williamsburg  grand  jury:* 

"We   present   as   a   grievance   the   general   neglect 
of  the  Provisions  of  the  Patrole  Law." 
And  in  pursuance  of  this  the  presiding  judge  makes  the 
following  order: 

"So  much  of  said  presentment  as  complains  of  the 
general  neglect  of  the  Patrol  law  be  served  on  —  — , 

Colonel  of  this  regiment,  and  he  be  requested  to  extend 
the  same  to  the  captains  of  the  various  Beat  Com 
panies  throughout  the  District." 

As  a  general  statement  the  patrol  laws  were  probably 
well  enforced  somewhat  effectively  in  the  rural  districts. 
This  does  not  mean  necessarily  that  the  ridings  were  al 
ways  regularly  distributed  but  they  were  usually  so.  It 
appears  that  these  ridings  were  more  or  less  regular  in 
the  country  districts.!  Any  disturbance  or  great  pre 
valence  of  thieving  by  the  negroes  was  likely  to  be  sufficient 
to  bring  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  patrol  to  ride  their 
beats  regularly.  But  when  all  was  quiet  and  orderly  and 
there  was  apparently  no  danger  of  any  kind  it  is  not  at 
all  improbable  that  the  patrol  was  lulled  into  inactivity 
and  many  of  the  ridings  were  neglected.  The  fact  that 
the  master  usually  disliked  for  his  slave  to  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  patrol  because  he  was  often  "beaten  up"  is 
sufficient  evidence  that  the  non-slaveholder  looked  upon 
the  patrol  as  the  guarantee  of  his  safety  from  evils  often 
perpetrated  by  the  black  race. 

The  case  of  the  State  vs.  Cole,  Dauner  and  Gaskins,f 
heard  in  1822,  gives  a  picture  of  the  seamy  side  of  the  en 
forcement  of  the  system.  A  slaveowner  was  aroused  in 
the  dead  of  the  night  by  an  unseemly  noise,  occasioned  by 

*MS.   records,   Williamsburg  County. 

§This  is  the  experience  of  older  men  who  recall  the  regularity  oj 
their  call  to  patrol  duty. 
f2  McCord  (Law),  117. 


40  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

the  presence  of  the  patrol,  and  going  out  he  found  his  dog 
had  been  killed,  a  slave  peaceably  at  home  had  been  severely 
whipped,  and  on  his  appearance  he  himself  was  abused 
in  harsh  language.  The  testimony  showed  that  this 
occurred  several  times.  Another  similar  case  arose  in 
1824.*  A  young  man  who  claimed  to  be  acting  under  the 
orders  of  his  father,  who  was  captain  of  the  patrol,  entered 
the  house  of  a  white  man  during  the  owner's  absence  and 
took  away  a  gun  while  the  house  was  in  the  possession  of 
a  slave.  In  both  cases  the  highest  court  held  that  the 
acts  were  unlawful  and  that  damages  could  be  maintained. 
It  appears,  however,  that  in  order  to  uphold  the  patrol 
system  and  to  allow  patrolmen  to  feel  that  they  were  to  have 
a  reasonably  free  hand,  many  unlawful  things  were  indulged 
in  and  either  went  unpunished  or  were  punished  with  only 
insignificant  fines.  This,  it  seems,  was  the  greatest  evil  of 
the  system  for  it  gave  unscrupulous  persons  unfair  advant 
ages  and  appears  not  to  have  encouraged  the  enforcement 
of  the  law  by  the  better  class.  It  was  possibly  in  protest 
against  what  he  regarded  as  unwarranted  and  unlawful 
interference  of  the  patrol  that  a  white  person  was  found 
guilty  in  the  sessions  court  of  Marlborough  district  in 
1846  for  "resisting  patrol"  and  sentenced  to  two  weeks 
imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  $2.00.f 

The  following  quotation  from  a  case  occurring  in  New- 
berry  district,  to  which  reference  will  again  be  made,  shows 
the  very  large  discretionary  latitude  allowed  to  the  patrol 
even  to  the  extent  of  ignoring  legal  provisions  to  carry  out 
the  spirit  of  the  law:§ 

"Let  the  patrol  always  act  in  the  spirit  that  should 
guide  the  discreet,  sedate,  intelligent  and  humane 
owner  of  slaves  and  they  will  find  the  judicial  arm  of 
the  government  nerved  to  sustain  them,  indeed  if  it 
could  be  presumed  that  in  such  case  they  would  ever 
need  it.  Thus  guided  they  may  often  find  occasion — 

*1  Harper  (Law),  332:     Porteous  vs.  Hazel  and  Jenkins. 

tMS  records,  Marlborough  County. 

§5  Strobhart  (Law),  21:     State  vs.  Boozer  et  al. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  41 

no  doubt  they  will — to  overlook  a  harmless  violation, 
a  venial  transgression  of  the  strict  letter." 
The  court  then  made  this  general  observation: 

"An  attentive  examination,  however,  of  our  slave 
law  will  show  that  there  are  few  occasions  when  a  slave 
is  supposed  to  need  the  interposition  of  police  discipline, 
whether  wielded  by  the  public  or  private  arm,  when  his 
errand  from  home  is  known  to  his  owner  and  per 
mitted  him  in  writing." 

The  other  side  of  unlawful  interference  had  been  clearly 
reproved  in  1819  by  the  same  court  :| 

"It  is  highly  proper  to  protect  these  officers  [patrols] 
when  acting  within  the  limits  of  their  authority;  but 
nothing  is  so  offensive  to  the  law,  as  to  violate  the 
principles  of  justice  and  humanity  under  the  semblance 
of  its  authority.  .  .  .  It  would  be  a  violation  of  all 
law  to  place  the  slaves  of  the  country  at  the  mercy 
of  every  unprincipled  and  unfeeling  man  who  may  be 
clothed  with  this  brief  authority.  It  is  the  duty  as  well 
as  the  interest  of  every  master  to  protect  his  slave 
from  unnecessary  punishment  and  to  resist  the  abuse 
of  legal  authority." 

In  Union  district  in  1818  and  again  in  1821  and  in  Spar- 
tanburg  in  1832  bills  of  indictment  for  "assaulting  patrole" 
and  for  "opposing  patrole"  were  put  in  the  hands  of  the 
grand  jury  by  the  solicitor,  but  in  none  of  the  three  cases 
was  a  true  bill  returned.  In  the  Spartanburg  case  the 
papers  including  sworn  evidence  are  accessible.  They  show 
that  a  white  man  interfered  with  the  patrol  which  was 
whipping  certain  negroes  who  were  away  from  home 
without  passes  at  two  o'clock  at  night.  Whether  the 
negroes  were  at  the  white  man's  house  or  at  the  cabins 
of  his  own  slaves  does  not  appear ;  but  the  available  facts 
suggest  the  probability  that  they  were  loafing  in  or  about 
the  white  man's  own  home  and  that  the  patrol  suspected 
some  evil  like  gaming  to  be  their  purpose.  The  fact  that  the 

f2  Nott  and  McCord  (Law),  113:     Hogg  vs   Keller. 


42  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

white  man  interfered  points  to  his  having  had  some  in 
terest  in  their  presence.* 

As  before  mentioned,  the  act  of  1819  had  modified  the 
general  provisions  on  patrol  regulations  by  making  it 
unlawful  to  chastise  slaves  in  any  incorporated  town  who 
were  found  on  the  streets  without  a  ticket  from  daylight 
until  9  p.  m.,  provided  their  home  was  with  their  master 
whose  residence  was  in  the  city.  This  law  of  1819  was  a 
rural  police  act.  The  effort  to  apply  the  same  police 
regulations  even  to  the  smaller  towns  that  were  appli 
cable  to  the  plantation  was  to  hamper  the  legitimate  in 
dustrial  operations  in  the  town.  It  was  found  necessary 
to  turn  over  the  patrol  duties  to  the  regular  police  force. 
But  these  changes  were  gradual.  Probably  owing  to  the 
scare  of  the  attempted  insurrection  near  Camden  in  1816, 
that  town  by  a  special  act  of  1818^  had  had  transferred  to 
its  town  council  the  entire  control  and  management  of 
the  patrol  and  the  enforcing  of  the  patrol  regulations.  This 
act  provided  that  "the  members  of  the  town  council 
.  .  .  .  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  penalties  for 
neglect  of  patrol  duty  that  the  captains  of  beat  companies 
are  now  subject  to  by  law."  Probably  some  difficulty 
in  enforcing  the  patrol  law  arose  for  in  1830  another  act§ 
was  passed  allowing  the  town  council  the  right  to  enforce 
duty  by  a  fine  of  $20  and  to  provide  for  the  commutation 
of  service  by  a  payment  in  lieu  of  services. 

Columbia  was  given,  by  an  act  of  1823j,  the  right  to  regu 
late  through  its  intendant  and  wardens  the  operation  and 
manner  of  enforcing  the  patrol  system.  The  supply  bill 
ordinance  of  the  city  in  1852  provided  for  a  commutation 
tax  of  $3.00  instead  of  serving  as  a  patrol."  A  similar 
commutation  tax  of  $4.00  per  annum  in  lieu  of  patrol 
service  was  provided  by  an  ordinance  for  Camden  in  1841.  | 

These  cases  are  to  be  found  in  the    MS.  records  of   the  counties 
named  above  respectively. 
H Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  98. 
§Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  415. 
{Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  207. 
I  The  Daily  South  Carolinian,  Dec.  22,  1852. 
fMSS.  Ordinance  of  Camden. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  43 

It  seems  that  village  patrol  service  was  well  enforced— 
Charleston  excepted — by  the  marshal  of  the  town.  It  had 
the  effect  probably  of  driving  from  the  town  to  points 
outside  the  corporate  limits  the  evil  doers  among  the  slaves 
and  free  negroes  as  will  appear  from  the  following  quo 
tations  occurring  in  a  communication  to  The  Daily  Tele 
graph  (Columbia),  of  Nov.  4,  1848,  from  "A  Citizen  of  the 
Sandhills." 

"The  latter  [i.  e.,  people  living  just  outside  the  town] 
have  long  been  subjected  to  aggressions  and  annoy 
ances  of  various  kinds  from  these  negroes,  who  from 
notoriously  bad  character,  are  forced  by  dread  of  the 
marshal  to  betake  themselves  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  town  in  pursuit  of  their  evil  practices  which 
evil  has  suddenly  been  much  increased  by  the  influx 
of  laborers  on  the  railroads  going  forward. 

"Unusual  vigilance  is  now  required  and  hence 
forward  patrol  law  will  be  rigidly  enforced  in  the 
different  beats.  The  residents  of  the  sand  hills  are 
determined  to  abate  the  nuisance  in  the  most  summary 
and  effectual  manner  practicable. 

"It  is  time  to  put  a  stop  to  this  marauding  when 
burglary  has  commenced,  after  the  smoke-houses  and 
poultry  yards  are  exhausted — and  when  a  nest  of 
gamblers  can  be  fallen  upon  almost  every  night  in 
the  week — every  Sunday  certainly. 

"To    flee    from    the    patrol    when    challenged — to 
resist,  effect   or   attempt   an   escape,    when   arrested, 
has  become  so  common  with  the  scoundrels  of  late, 
that  a  few  startling  examples  must  be  made." 
Not  all  the  regulations,  particularly  the  patrol  regula 
tions  dealing  with  slaves,  applied  to  free  negroes,  who  were 
allowed  freedom  of  movement  from  place  to  place  without 
legal   restraint.     Where  their  numbers  were  considerable 
they,  however,  presented  much  the  same  problem  of  con 
trol   that  the  slaves  did.     Hence  curfew  laws  applicable 
to  free  negroes  as  well   as  slaves  were  resorted   to.     As 
early    as    1804    Charleston    passed    such    an    ordinance.! 

^Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  3,  1804. 


44  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

The  town  of  Pendleton,  in  the  foothills,  which,  according 
to  the  census  of  1830,  had  only  329  inhabitants — 172 
whites  and  157  slaves — had  a  curfew  ordinance  in  force 
in  1835*,  providing  that  the  patrol  should  "apprehend  and 
correct  all  slaves  and  free  persons  of  color"  who  might  be 
found  on  the  streets  after  9  p.  m.  "whether  such  slave  or 
free  person  of  color  have  a  pass  or  not."  Probably  other 
if  not  all  towns  and  villages  had  such  regulations  for  clear 
ing  the  streets  at  night. 

The  proper  policing  of  the  colored  population  seems  to 
have  been  a  greater  problem  in  Charleston  than  elsewhere, 
due  in  large  part  no  doubt  to  the  lax  rein  held  over  them 
and  to  the  presence  there  of  a  larger  number  of  free  negroes 
than  elsewhere.  The  regulations  had  to  be  more  flexible, 
for  owners  often  hired  out  their  slaves  whose  coming  and 
going  when  in  the  legitimate  performance  of  their  duties 
were  less  circumscribed  than  they  were  on  the  plantations. 
At  every  angle  of  the  negro's  activity  there  was  more  op 
portunity  of  taking  advantage  of  his  liberties  for  evil. 
And  yet  many  of  the  evils  were  often  probably  not  worse 
than  aimless  loitering  or  congregating  on  the  streets  on 
public  occasions. 

These  grievances  as  to  the  control  of  the  negro  popula 
tion  go  back  to  the  early  times.  It  seems  that  the  port 
of  Charleston  very  soon  became  a  sort  of  rendezvous  for 
these  undesirables.  The  seventh  section  of  the  Negro 
law  of  1712  says  that, 

"Whereas  great  numbers  of  slaves  which  do  not 
dwell  in  Charleston  on  Sundays  and  holidays  resort 
hither  to  drink,  fight,  curse  and  swear  and  profane 
the  Sabbath  and  using  and  carrying  of  clubs  and 
other  mischievous  weapons,  resorting  in  great  com 
panies  together,  which  may  give  them  an  opportunity 
for  executing  any  wicked  designs  and  purposes  to 
the  damage  and  prejudice  of  the  inhabitants  of  this 
province." 
The  section  after  thus  reciting  the  evils  makes  it  the  duty 

* Pendleton  Messenger,  Dec.  18,  1835.  The  census  figures  given 
above  were  not  published  but  were  secured  direct  from  Census  Bureau. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  45 

of  the  constable  of  Charleston  on  Sundays,  Christmas, 
Whitsuntide  and  Easter  to  press  into  service  as  many  men 
as  might  be  necessary  to  go  through  all  the  streets  and  to 
search  the  houses  and  publicly  to  whip  all  slaves  found 
visiting  and  then  turn  them  over  to  the  marshal  to  be 
dealt  with  as  runaways.  The  patrol  law  of  1734,  before 
referred  to,  provided  in  a  special  section*  for  two  patrols 
of  eight  men  each  to  make  alternate  ridings,  on  Saturday 
nights,  Sundays,  Sunday  nights  and  holidays. 

These  laws  did  not  have  all  of  the  effect  desired.     The 
Charleston  grand  jury  in  1744  saidif 

"We  present  as  a  grievance  the  great  insolence  of 
negroes  in   Charles  Town  by  gaming  in  the  streets 
and  caballing  in  great  numbers  through  most  parts 
of  the  Town,  especially  on  the  Sabbath  day." 
Another  presentment  of  similar  import  was  made  by  the 
grand  jury  in  1766:§ 

"We   present  that   the  negro  law  is  not  put  into 

strict  execution,   and   that   the  slaves  of   Charleston 

are  not  under  a  good   regulation,  and  that  they  at 

all  times  in  the  night  go   about   the   streets   rioting, 

that  they  do  often  gather  in  great  numbers  on  the 

Sabbath  day  and  make  riots  where  it  is  not  in  the 

power  of  the  small  number  of  watchmen  to  suppress 

them,  which  may  without  any  precaution  prove  the 

utmost  ill  consequences  to  this  province." 

That  the  enforcement  of  the  patrol  was  either  necessarily 

or  carelessly  lax  appears  in  the  following  presentment  of 

the  grand  jury  in  the  next  year:^ 

"We  present  as  a  grievance  the  bad  practice  of  free 
negroes  and  mulattoes  being  suffered  to  pass  to  and 
fro  without  any  certificate  or  badge  of  their  being  free, 
by  which  means  many  runaway  slaves  are  suffered  to 
pass  as  free." 

*Section  6. 

^South  Carolina  Gazette,  Nov.  5,  1744. 

§South  Carolina  Gazette,  June  2,  1766. 

ISouth  Carolina  Gazette,  Nov.  9,  1767, 


46  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

The  need  of  something  like  a  guard-house  with  the 
correction  idea  for  these  colored  offenders  against  police 
regulations  became  evident  and  took  form  in  the  work 
house  scheme.*  It  appears  at  first  to  have  been  intended 
for  other  servants  as  well  as  slaves  but  soon  came  to  be 
used  solely  for  negroes.  It  must  have  been  regarded  as  a 
thankless  task,  since  the  first  section  of  the  ordinance 
providing  for  its  management  by  five  commissioners 
attaches  a  penalty  of  a  fine  of  $40  for  refusal  by  any  person 
to  serve  in  that  capacity  when  he  had  been  chosen  by  the 
city  council.  Still  there  seems  to  have  been  but  little 
reason  for  such  an  idea,  if  it  did  exist,  for  the  workhouse 
appears  to  have  been  an  instance  of  an  intelligent  method 
of  dealing  with  the  troublesome  problem  of  police  control. 
It  may  be  disagreeable  to  administer  the  affairs  of  a  prison 
and  inflict  the  punishment  provided  for,  but  so  long  as  we 
have  criminals,  they  must  be  dealt  with  in  some  way  by 
somebody  in  the  interest  of  society. 

This  is  the  way  an  Englishman  travelling  in  America 
in  1827  regarded  the  purpose  of  the  workhouse: 

4 'It  seems,  indeed  an  essential  part  of  the  system  of 
slavery  that  the  lash  should  be  used  as  a  means  of  en 
forcing  discipline.  But  as  the  disagreeable  nature  of 
this  discipline  prevents  the  master  from  administer 
ing  it  at  home,  the  offending  slave  is  sent  to  the  work 
house  with  a  note  and  piece  of  money,  on  delivering 
which  he  receives  so  many  stripes  and  is  sent  back 
again."t 

To  this  workhouse  were  sent  slaves  and  free  negroes  ar 
rested  by  the  police  or  patrol  after  beating  of  tattoo,  or 
arrested  runaways.  ''Lodged  in  the  workhouse  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  owner"  (who  became  liable  for  the  costs 
of  the  slave's  arrest  and  detention)  was  the  usual  form. 
Any  slaveowner  had  the  privilege  of  placing  an  unruly 
or  disobedient  slave  in  the  workhouse  for  correction  for 

*Charleston  Ordinances,  1807,  p.  474,  bound  volume.  It  is  mentioned 
in  the  Negro  law  of  1740,  Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  411,  sec.  37.  It  was 
established  probably  near  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

fHall,[C.  P.:    Travels  in  North  America,  p.  204, 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  47 

any  length  of  time  and  by  paying  for  his  dieting  the  slave 
might  be  allowed  to  remain  for  some  time  without  work. 
For  each  correction,  whipping  or  putting  on  of  irons  a 
fee  of  twenty-five  cents  was  charged.  The  master  of  the 
workhouse  was  limited  by  ordinance  to  administer  not 
more  than  two  whippings  of  twenty  lashes  each  in  any  one 
week  and  at  least  three  days  must  intervene,  even  though 
the  owner  might  desire  more  severe  and  more  frequent 
castigation.  This  made  it  unnecessary  for  the  owner  to 
whip  his  own  slave  if  he  found  it  distasteful,  and  perhaps 
the  threat  of  a  trip  to  the  workhouse  had  a  salutary  effect 
on  the  slave's  conduct.  It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  it  made 
the  corporal  punishment  of  the  slave  more  cruel,  for  the 
master  of  the  workhouse  was  limited  in  this  respect 
and  chastisement  was  at  the  owner's  direction  and  avoided 
the  cruelty  incident  to  sudden  heat  of  passion.  It  also 
provided  a  convenient  place  of  commitment.  All  the  in 
mates  of  the  workhouse  were  employed  in  gainful  occu 
pations  —  stone  cutting  was  one  —  during  their  stay  unless 
unable  or  their  master  requested  remission  of  labor. 

In  1804  the  Charleston  city  council  passed  a  curfew 
law,*  which  provided  that  any  free  negro  being  found  with 
out  his  own  or  his  employer's  premises  after  beating  of 
tattoo  should  be  lodged  in  the  guard-house  until  a  fine 
ranging  from  $1  to  $5  be  paid  by  himself  or  in  the  case  of 
a  slave  by  his  owner.  If  the  money  should  not  be  forth 
coming  he  was  to  work  it  out  at  the  workhouse.  Refusal 
to  stand  when  arrested  or  to  be  obstinate  at  trial  was  to 
be  punished  with  a  fine  of  $40.  f  But  this  regulation  was 
not  unattended  with  difficulty.  In  a  communication 
from  "Investigator,"  in  The  Southern  Patriot  of  December 
22,  1823,  complaint  was  made  that  often  when  a  slave  is  ar 
rested  another  negro,  presumably  free,  was  allowed  by  the 
warden  of  the  guard  -house  to  pay  the  fine  and  secure  the 
slave's  release.  It  was  not  claimed  that  this  occurred 
frequently  and  perhaps  was  rare.  "Investigator"  raised 

*It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  the  city  had  a  curfew  ordinance 
before  this,  but  this  will  conveniently  illustrate, 
^Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  3,  1804. 


OF  Tlllt 


48  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

the  inquiry  to  know  whether  this  practice  had  the  approval 
of  the  city  council  or  whether  it  was  a  usurpation  by  the 
wardens  of  the  guard-house.  For  he  added  that  it  might 
be  that  the  master  by  this  means  did  not  learn  of  the  ab 
sence  of  his  slave  from  his  quarters  and  would  wish  to  have 
him  punished  if  he  did  know  it. 

There  were  several  other  minor  ordinances  which  in 
all  probability  were  not  well  enforced.  An  ordinance 
of  1813*  prohibited  negroes  from  swearing,  smoking  or 
walking  with  a  cane  on  the  streets — the  infirm  or  blind 
were  allowed  use  of  a  cane  of  course — or  to  making  any 
joyful  demonstration.  No  negro  dances  were  to  be  held 
without  the  consent  of  the  city  wardens,  nor  were  negroes 
to  assemble  at  any  military  parade.  This  last  was  not 
well  enforced  as  appears  from  the  following  from" Enquirer," 
on  "Our  Police,"  in  the  Charleston  Mercury  of  December 
10,  1835: 

"At  all  our  military  parades  our  streets  are  crowded 
and  infested  with  troops  of  negroes,  who  neglect 
their  master's  work  to  attend  these  parades.  Why 
is  the  law  not  enforced?" 

Another  regulation  in  1848f  excluded  from  the  parks  all 
slaves  and  free  negroes  unless  in  company  with  a  white 
person,  or  unless  they  had  passes  from  their  masters,  or 
in  case  of  free  negroes,  from  their  employers,  and  these 
passes  must  be  for  a  specific  purpose.  This  was  appro 
priate  if  they  congregated  on  the  batteries  and  wharves. 
"A  Friend  of  Good  Order"  complained,  in  the  Charleston 
Courier  of  December  11,  1821,  that  the  street  on  South 
Bay  was  taken  up  with  riotous  negroes.  Another  ordi 
nance  of  1850§  prohibited,  with  a  penalty  for  its  violation 
by  a  fine  of  $5  to  $20,  any  owner  of  a  saloon  to  allow  a  slave 
or  free  negro  to  loiter  or  sit  down  in  his  place  of  business. 
The  report  of  Wm.  Porcher  Miles,  referred  to  again,  points 
out  that  whiskey  is  the  greatest  evil  to  combat  in  policing 
the  negroes  of  the  city.  A  summing  up  of  the  cases  against 

*Printed  Ordinances  of  the  City  of  Charleston. 

^Southern  Patriot,  Nov.  30,  1848. 

iMentioned  in  4  Strobhart  (Law),  321:     City  Council  vs.  Seeba. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  49 

negroes  in  the  police  court  as  they  were  written  up  for  the 
Evening  News  in  1856  shows  that  drunkenness  was  a  part 
of  the  charge  in  almost  all  of  the  cases. 

The  following  excellent  summary  of  the  negro  cases  by 
Mayor  Robert  Y.  Hayne,  for  the  year  ending  September 
1,  1837,  as  given  in  his  annual  report,  affords  us  a  clear 
statement  of  the  dealings  of  his  court  with  the  colored 
population  for  a  year  favorable  for  a  fair  comparison  of 
results:* 

"The  number  of  slaves  [i.  e.,  brought  before  the 
mayor's  court]  was  768,  of  whom  138  were  discharged, 
309  fined,  264  committed  to  the  work-house,  or  sub 
jected  for  trial. 

"The  number  of  free  persons  of  color  was  78,  of 
whom  27  were  discharged,  36  fined  or  subjected  to 
corporal  punishment,  5  committed  to  the  work 
house,  and  10  committed  for  trial 

"Of  the  573  slaves  fined  or  committed  to  the  work 
house  nearly  the  whole  were  arrested  for  being  out 
at  night  without  tickets  or  being  found  in  the  dram 
shops  or  other  unlawful  places.  The  fines  imposed 
did  not  in  general  exceed  SI,  and  where  corporal 
punishment  was  inflicted  it  was  always  moderate. 
It  is  worthy  to  remark  that  of  the  460  cases  reported 
by  the  marshals  for  prosecution,  but  22  were  actually 
prosecuted,  the  penalties  having  been  voluntarily 
paid  in  303  cases,  and  in  118  cases  having  been  re 
mitted,  thus  preventing  by  a  previous  examination, 
421  suits." 

From  the  report  two  years  later  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
city  authorities  is  taken  the  following  extract  relating  to 
the  colored  population : 

"The  following  is  a  statement  of  the  number  of 
cases  examined,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  they 
were  disposed  of,  in  which  slaves  and  free  persons  of 
color  were  arrested  for  being  "out  after  the  beating 
of  the  tattoo  without  tickets,  fighting  and  rioting 

*Pamphlet,  Proceedings  City  Authorities  of  Charleston,  Sept.  1, 
1836,  to  Sept.  1,  1837,  page  8,  S.  C.  Hist,  Society  Collection. 


50  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

in  the  streets,  following  military  companies,  walking 
on  the  battery  contrary  to  law,  bathing  horses  at 
forbidden  places,  theft  or  other  violation  of  the  city 
and  state  laws:" 

Number  cases  examined 1,424 

Discharged  after  examination 270 

Punished  in  the  work-house 330 

Prosecuted  or  delivered  to  warrant 33 

Fined  or  committed  to  the  work-house  until  fine 

be  paid 26 

Penalties  paid  by  owners  or  guardian 398 

Runaways  disposed  of  according  to  law 115 

Delivered  to  the  orders  of  the  owners 252 

The  often  riotous  and  troublesome  population  could 
in  a  measure  be  controlled  in  the  city  but  it  caused  trouble 
just  outside,  as  was  the  case  on  the  outskirts  of  Columbia 
referred  to  above.  The  locality  of  most  disturbance  was 
on  what  was  commonly  known  as  "Charleston  Neck," 
which  is  the  long  narrow  strip  of  land  extending  some 
twelve  miles  back  of  the  city  between  the  Ashley  and 
Cooper  rivers.  Driven  from  the  city  by  a  general  tighten 
ing  up  of  the  municipal  patrol  the  free  negroes  and  in 
sufficiently  restrained  slaves  went  just  beyond  the  city 
limits  to  continue  their  disorder.  The  Charleston  grand 
jury  referred  to  this  evil  as  early  as  1744:* 

"We  present  as  a  grievance  Negroes  being  allowed 

to  go  from  Town  into  the  Country  under  pretense  of 

picking   myrtle   berries,   etc.,   and   who   at   the  same 

time  carry  Rum  and  other  Goods,  to  trade  with  Negroes 

in  the  Country,   by  which   they  are  debauched   and 

encouraged  to  steal  and  robb  their  masters  of  their 

corn,  poultry  and  other  provisions." 

There  was  a  further  difficulty  where  there  were  very 

many  free  negroes,  that  slaves  when  caught  by  the  patrol 

would  endeavor  to  pass  themselves  as  free  persons.     This 

was  true  of  Charleston  where  according  to  the  census  of 

1810  it  was  shown  that  there  were  1,783  free  negroes  in 

*$outh  Carolina  Gazette,  Nov.  5,  1744, 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  51 

the  district.  Hence  a  special  act  of  1823f  by  the  General 
Assembly  for  the  regulation  of  the  patrol  on  "Charleston 
Neck"  provided  that  any  free  negro  might  be  whipped  by 
the  patrol  when  away  from  his  home  or  his  employer's 
premises  unless  he  produced  his  "free  papers, "§  or  convince 
the  patrol  of  his  freedom  by  other  satisfactory  proof. 
The  act  even  goes  further  and  declares  that  free  negroes 
out  of  their  own  or  their  employer's  premises  after  9  p.  m.* 
without  a  ticket  from  their  guardians  would  be  liable  to 
the  same  punishment  meted  out  to  a  slave. 

Owing  to  the  difficulties  incident  to  the  proximity  of  the 
city  this  patrol  of  "the  Neck"  was  often,  if  not  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  time,  inefficient.  The  report  on  the 
proceedings  of  the  city  authorities  in  1836  said  that  efforts 
to  control  the  negroes  in  the  city  are  futile,  since  they  easily 
cross  the  boundary  into  "the  Neck"  where  "the  police 
is  not  and  cannot  be  effective."  A  union  of  the  two  was 
thought  desirable.  A  communication  to  the  Charleston 
Courier  of  September  23,  1845,  voiced  the  same  feeling, 
pointing  out  the  need  of  a  guard-house.  With  an  editorial 
deliverance  from  the  Charleston  Courier  of  April  25,  1834, 
must  be  dismissed  the  situation  on  "the  Neck"  peculiarly 
aggravating  to  the  people  of  Charleston: 

"On  Charleston  Neck  it  [i.  e.,  the  disorderliness] 
has  become  a  serious  evil,  more  particularly  as  it 
refers  to  the  drunken  gangs  of  drunken  and  riotous 
negroes  pitching  cents,  and  playing  marbles,  cursing 
and  blaspheming  in  the  vicinity  of  the  ruinous  and 
fatal  sons  of  vice,  the  retail  liquor  shops,  with  which 
our  city  and  neighborhood  is  so  much  infested.  From 
these  receptacles  of  iniquity  they  come  forth,  sur 
charged  with  the  fumes  of  whiskey  and  segars  in  their 
mouths,  staggering  on  their  way,  brawling  and  rioting 
totally  regardless  of  decency  and  decorum.  .  .  . 
What  has  become  of  the  Charleston  Neck  patrol? 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VIII,  545. 

§Certified  copies  of  the  record  of  his  freedom  required  to  be  fur- 
ished  him  by  the  clerk  of  court. 
*10  p.  m.  from  Mar,  20  to  Sept.  20. 


52  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

There  was  a  time  when  that  patrol  as  a  body,  and  in 
the  respective  districts,  contributed  much  to  suppress 
such  malpractice  and  by  its  energy  afforded  protection, 
not  merely  to  property  but  to  the  feelings  of  those 
who  mostly  have  a  claim  upon  their  chivalry  and  honor, 
nor  do  we  cease  to  look  to  the  interposition  of  the 
Charleston  Neck  patrol  as  an  auxiliary  for  enforcing 
the  laws  and  of  guarding  the  portions  of  the  community 
against  the  continuance  and  further  encroachments 
of  habits  and  practices  conducive  to  the  awful  and 
evitable  consequences  of  immorality,  vice  and 
irreligion." 


CHAPTER   V 
Punishment  of  Slaves 

A  great  deal  of  the  hostility  to  the  institution  of  slavery 
came  of  the  alleged  cruelty  to  the  slave;  and  much  of  this 
charge,  it  must  be  admitted,  was  well  founded.  However, 
the  cruelty  can,  in  some  measure  at  least,  be  justified  by 
the  fact  that  nothing  but  the  fear  of  a  certain  and  severe 
physical  punishment  for  misdoings  could  hold  most 
slaves  in  check.  The  act  of  1712  has  often  been  pointed 
out  as  evidence  of  cruelty  in  its  graduated  scale  of  mutil 
ations.  However,  these  ideas  were  probably  in  large 
part  a  survival  of  English  penal  law.  Furthermore  this 
act  was  superseded  in  1740,  and  although  branding  was 
not  specifically  forbidden  until  1833*,  there  is  little  that 
the  writer  has  found  in  the  way  of  mention  in  newspapers 
or  elsewhere  as  evidence  of  anything  other  than  whipping 
as  a  legal  penalty  for  lesser  offenses  except  a  few  instances 
of  ear  cropping.  But  there  are  abundant  instances  of 
private  cruelty  and  unwarranted  mistreatment  if  one  wishes 
to*dwell  upon  that  side  of  slavery. 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  489. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  53 

The  plantation  system  involved  many  instances  of 
harsh  treatment  at  the  hands  of  cruel  masters  and  over 
seers.  And  it  was  on  the  large  plantation  that  slavery 
could  be  seen  at  its  worst,  where  the  direct  oversight  of 
the  master  could  not  easily  protect  his  interests  in  the 
humane  treatment  of  the  slaves.  Neglect  or  failure  prop 
erly  to  finish  tasks,  running  away,  theft,  show  of  impu 
dence  and  insolence,  or  violence  to  the  other  slaves  with 
perhaps  other  small  offenses  was  sure  to  call  down  upon 
an  offender  the  justice  of  a  wise  manager  or  the  wrath  of 
a  cruel  overseer.  In  any  instance  it  was  not  likely  nor  was 
it  intended  that  any  outside  interference  should  be  inter 
posed  so  long  as  it  could  not  be  satisfactorily  shown  that 
the  punishment  led  to  a  shortening  of  the  slave's  life  or 
permanent  injury,  or  as  statute  law  would  say,  "extending 
to  life  or  limb."  The  master  or  the  manager  under  his 
authority  was  to  be  the  sole  judge  of  the  grievousness  of 
the  offense  and  the  number  and  severity  of  the  strokes 
in  whipping  even  if  the  punishment  should  disable  the 
victim  for  a  short  time.  The  court  records  of  cruelty  to 
slaves  discussed  in  a  later  chapter  will  suffice  to  illustrate 
the  slightness  of  the  probability  that  the  master  would 
be  called  to  account.  On  the  smaller  farms,  where  the 
owners  had  the  direct  oversight,  very  little  cruelty  occurred. 
Many  people  could  relate  the  lesser  punishment  meted  out 
to  their  slaves  as  is  recited  in  the  humdrum  diary  of  James 
Kershaw:* 

"1812,  August  5,  gave  Jude  a  whipping  for  impu 
dence." 

Offenses  such  as  thieving  or  general  disturbances  were 
always  punished  with  whipping,  which  was  usually  severe. 
Judge  O'Neall  had  the  following  to  say  as  to  this  method 
of  punishment  :f 

"The  whippings  inflicted  by  the  sentence  of  courts 
trying  slaves  and  free  negroes  are  most  enormous — 
utterly  disproportioned  to  offenses — and  should  be 
prevented  by  all  means  in  our  power.  In  all  cases 

*Reprinted  in  Kirkland  and  Kennedy's  Historic  Camden,  p.  412. 
fNegro  Law  of  South  Carolina,  p.  35. 


54  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

where  whipping  is  to  be  resorted  to,   I   would  limit 
the  punishment  by  law,   in  all   cases  affecting  both 
black  and  white,  to  forty,  save  one,  and  direct  it  to 
be  inflicted  in  portions,  and  at  considerable  intervals 
of  time.     Thus  mingling  whipping  and  imprisonment 
together,  and  holding  the  rod  suspended  in  the  con 
templation  of  the  party,  until  the  delay  itself  would 
be  worse  punishment  than  the  infliction." 
Some  instances  of  punishment  may  be  mentioned.     The 
following  sentence  was  imposed  by  a  court  for  negroes  in 
Charleston  upon  a  negro — presumably  free — convicted  of 
attempt  to  set  fire  to  a  private  kitchen:* 

"Twenty  lashes  at  Centre-Market,  on  10th  inst, — 
twenty  lashes  on  3rd  of  March — twenty  on  24th  of 
March,  and  twenty  on   14th  of  April.     Or  if  he  so 
choose  he  may  leave  the  state  after  the  first  whipping." 
Cuffy,  a  slave,  received  the  following  sentence  for  man 
slaughter  of  another  slave  at  the  hands  of  a  similar  tribunal  :§ 
"Six  weeks  solitary  confinement;  three  weeks  upon 
the  treadmill,   and   twenty   lashes  at   three  different 
times   in   the    public    market,    at   intervals   of   thret 
weeks." 

A  news  note  in  the  Rising  Sun  of  April  27,  1859,  gives  this 
as  the  sentence  imposed  upon  a  negro  for  chicken  stealing: 
"Nathan,  a  slave  was  tried  and  convicted  for  stealing 
chickens  from  a  Mr.  ,  and  sentenced  to  ninety- 
five  lashes.     Peter,  another  slave,   a  witness  in  the 
case,  being  detected  in  several  falsehoods  and  being 
believed   to   have   an   interest   in   said  chickens,  was 
sentenced  to  thirty  lashes." 

The  Darlington  grand  jury  in  its  presentementf  at  the  fall 
term  of  court  in.  1852  called  attention  to  their  discovery 
in  the  dungeon  of  the  jail  of  a  slave  named  Scipio,  who  had 
been  sentenced  by  a  court  for  negroes  to  two  years  im 
prisonment  and  five  hundred  lashes; — undoubtedly,  if 

^Charleston  Courier,  Feb.  8,  1826. 
^Charleston  Courier,  May  2,  1839. 
fMS.  records  for  Darlington  County. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  55 

there  is  not  a  mistake  in  transcribing  the  sentence,  it  was 
with  the  purpose  of  a  distribution  of  the  lashes — the  request 
of  the  jury  is  that  this  be  lessened  since  it  would  probably 
endanger  the  slave's  life.  Three  negroes  in  Laurens 
district  were  convicted  of  assaulting  a  white  man  and 
sentenced  to  receive  each  five  hundred  lashes,  evidently 
with  a  view  to  distributing  them.* 

Transportation  was  another  means  of  handling  trouble 
some  slaves.  It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  being 
sold  to  a  trader  was  held  up  as  an  evil  from  which  the  slave 
might  well  wish  to  escape.  In  1833  a  casef  arose  involving 
the  validity  of  a  contract  connected  with  a  bill  of  sale  to 
carry  out  of  the  state  a  certain  slave.  The  court's  opinion 
both  as  to  the  legality  of  such  a  contract  and  what  of  cus 
tom  it  involved  is  well  worth  quoting: 

' 'Contracts    of    this    sort    are    not    unusual.     The 
owners  of  slaves  frequently  send  them  off  from  amongst 
their  kindred  and  associates  as  a  punishment,  and  it 
is  frequently  resorted  to  as  the  means  of  separating 
a  vicious  negro  amongst  others  exposed  to  be  influenced 
and  corrupted  by  his  example.     It  is,  therefore,  com 
mon  to  require  of  the  purchaser  of  such  a  negro,  that 
he  shall  carry  him  out  of   the  state.     In  such  a  con 
tract  there  is  nothing  immoral,  impolitic  or  illegal, 
and  when,  as  in  this  case,  it  is  founded  on  a  valuable 
consideration  there  can  be  no   doubt  that  it  is  binding." 
W.  C.  Bryant  preserves  to  us  one  of  the  songs§  he  heard 
sung  by  the  negroes  at  a  "corn  shucking"  while  on  a  visit 
to  South  Carolina,  probably  at  Barnwell.     It  is  quoted  to 
illustrate   the   fear   they   had   of  being   sold   into   distant 
regions : 

*Laurensville  Herald,  Feb.  19,  1858. 

fl  Hill  (law),  150:     Nowell  vs.  O'Hara. 

§DeBow's  Review,   IX,  326. 


56  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

"Johnny,  come  down  de  hollow. 
Oh  hollow. 


De  nigger-trader  got  he. 

Oh  hollow. 
De  speculator  bought  me. 

Oh  hollow. 
I'm  sold  for  silver  dollars. 

Oh  hollow. 
Boys,  go  catch  de  pony. 

Oh  hollow. 
Bring  him  round  de  corner. 

Oh  hollow. 
I'm  goin'  'way  to  Georgia. 

Oh  hollow. 
Boys,  good-bye  forever. 

Oh  hollow." 

The  number  of  offenses,  capital  when  committed  by 
negroes,  was  greater  than  those  in  the  case  of  white  men. 
And  the  execution  of  the  sentence  in  the  case  of  negroes 
was  probably  more  certain  than  in  that  of  the  whites. 
Any  homicide  of  a  white  by  a  negro  would  probably  be 
adjudged  murder.  It  would  be  of  little  avail  to  sum  up 
the  capital  offenses  of  the  slave,  for  on  the  one  side  they 
appear  far  too  few  as  specified  in  the  statutes  and  on  the 
other  they  would  by  no  means  cover  all  the  offenses  for 
which  the  extreme  penalty  could  be  imposed.  For  some 
offenses,  particularly  when  they  are  repetitions,  the  fixing 
of  the  penalty  is  left  to  the  court  trying  the  case.  One 
such  will  serve  to  illustrate.  By  the  law  of  1740*  any 
slave  presuming  to  strike  a  white  person  unless  done  at 
the  command  of  his  master  or  in  defense  of  him,  shall 
for  the  second  or  third  offense  suffer  such  punishment  as 
the  ''court  shall  in  their  discretion  think  fitt,  not  extending 
to  life  or  limb."  For  the  third  offense  the  penalty  is 
death,  or  in  case  the  slave  "grievously  wound  or  bruise 
any  white  person,  though  it  shall  be  only  the  first  offense, 
shall  suffer  death." 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  405,  sec.  24. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  57 

The  act  of  175 If  authorized  the  court  for  the  trial  of 
slaves  to  commute  the  capital  punishment  required  by 
law  provided  the  circumstances  under  which  the  crime 
was  committed  should  seem  to  warrant  it.  Also  an  act 
of  1834*  gave  the  court  discretion  in  any  case  not  capital 
to  substitute  imprisonment  for  any  other  penalty  not 
provided  by  law. 

It  seems  that  the  slaveholding  interest  of  South 
Carolina  practically  controlled  all  slave  legislation  during 
the  period  of  its  existence.  A  good  illustration  of  this  is 
the  law  which  provided  for  the  payment  from  the  public 
treasury  for  every  slave  executed.  This  was  in  some  form 
continued  until  the  sixties.  By  the  act  of  1740  the  maxi 
mum  payment  allowed  was  £200  but  this  was  lowered  to  £40 
in  1751.  From  1800  to  1825  there  appear  among  the  acts 
of  the  Assembly  the  annual  appropriations  for  executed 
slaves,  the  amount  being  uniformly  $122.43.  A  compila 
tion  of  these  acts  will  also  show  how  many  legal  hanging 
of  negroes  occurred.  The  largest  number  thus  provided 
for  was  seven  in  1812.  For  the  other  years  the  usual  num 
ber  was  two  or  three,  but  in  some  years  there  were  none. 
This  argues  well  for  the  freedom  of  slaves  from  capital 
crime  unless  we  may  suppose  that  others  were  dealt  with 
in  a  summary  manner,  or  that  no  reimbursement  was  ap 
plied  for. 

For  the  next  eighteen  years  no  further  account  of  pay 
ments  for  executed  slaves  appears,  and  it  would  seem  that 
no  such  cases  occurred,  doubt  even  having  arisen  as  to 
whether  allowances  for  such  compensation  were  legally 
in  force,  when  in  1843  an  act  declared  that  such  a  law  was 
in  force  and  provided  for  the  paying  of  the  value  of  slaves 
executed  during  the  four  years  just  passed. §  This  same 
legislature  passed  another  act  fixing  the  maximum  penalty 
for  an  owner  or  overseer  who  concealed  or  conveyed  away 
a  slave  charged  with  a  capital  offense  at  a  fine  of  $1,000 
and  twelve  months'  imprisonment. t 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  420,  sec.  18. 
*Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  516. 
iStatutes  at  Large,  XI,  285. 
^Statutes  at  Large,  XI,  278. 


58  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

CHAPTER    VI 
Courts  for  the  Trial  of  Negroes 

There  has  been  occasion  for  frequent  references  to  courts 
for  the  trial  of  slaves  and  free  negroes.  We  may  now 
describe  their  organization  and  investigate  their  operation. 
The  purpose  of  the  early  settlers  in  dealing  with  crimes 
committed  by  negroes  seems  to  have  been  to  make  justice 
sure  and  swift.  For  example,  in  Charleston  in  1733,  on 
a  Saturday  afternoon,  "a  negro  fellow"  stole  a  horse  from 
a  boy  who  was  riding  him.  The  negro  was  caught  on 
Sunday,  tried  by  the  tribunal  for  negroes  on  Monday  and 
about  noon  on  Tuesday  paid  the  penalty  on  the  gallows.* 
None  of  the  safeguards  cherished  by  Englishmen,  such  as 
trial  by  jury,  were  thrown  around  the  negro.  It  was 
a  court  given  large  discretion  and  unhampered  by  techni 
calities. 

The  courts  as  organized  by  the  colonial  act  of  1690f 
remained  the  same  with  more  or  less  unimportant  modi 
fications  throughout  the  slavery  regime.  A  fuller  provision 
for  them  was  made  in  the  great  negro  law  of  1740.  Any 
justice  of  the  peace§  being  informed  of  the  commission 
of  a  crime  by  a  slave  or  free  negro  was  immediately  to 
despatch  his  constable  to  effect  the  arrest  of  the  criminal, 
and  forthwith  to  summon  another  justice  nearest  at  hand 
together  with  not  less  than  three  nor  more  than  five  free 
holders  within  three  days,*  for  the  trial  of  the  case.  A 
quorum,  which  must  consist  of  a  justice  and  two  freeholders, 
or  of  two  justices  and  one  freeholder,  was  sufficient  to  con 
vict.  ||  The  sentence  was  then  to  be  fixed  by  the  quorum 

*Souih  Carolina  Gazette,  Jan.  27,  1733. 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  345. 

§Later  called  magistrate.  Hence  referred  to  as  the  "Magistrates 
and  freeholders  court." 

jBy  act  of  1754,  Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  427,  six  days. 

1 1 This  prevented  conviction  either  by  the  votes  of  the  justices  alone 
or  by  the  freeholders  alone.  The  "justice  of  the  quorum"  used  in  this 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  59 

according  to  law,  and  it  will  here  be  remembered  that 
large  discretion  was  allowed  as  to  the  penalties.  There 
was,  until  very  much  later,  no  appeal  from  these  courts. 

We  need  not  go  outside  the  state  to  hear  this  system  of 
trial  condemned.  A  few  quotations  of  official  or  repre 
sentative  character  will  suffice.  The  first  is  from  Judge 
O'Neall,  who  had  abundant  opportunity  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  workings  of  the  court:* 

"The  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  slaves  and  free  negroes 
is  the  worst  system  which  could  be  devised.  The 
consequence  is,  that  the  passions  and  prejudices 
of  the  neighborhood  arising  from  a  recent  offense, 
enter  into  the  trial,  and  often  lead  to  the  condem 
nation  of  the  innocent." 

Another  clearer  statement  is  from  the  annual  message  of 
Governor  Robert  Y.  Hayne  to  the  legislature  in  1833: 

"In  relation  to  the  slaves  my  own  experience  and 
observation  have  convinced  me  that  reform  is  im 
periously  called  for.  While  rigid  discipline  should  be 
enforced,  the  law  ought  at  the  same  time  to  afford 
complete  protection  against  injustice.  The  courts 
before  which  slaves  must  now  be  tried,  for  crimes  of 
every  description,  are  liable  to  be  so  arranged  as  to 
deprive  them  of  an  impartial  trial. 

"It  is  true  that  the  moral  sense  of  the  community 
afford  them,  in  general,  protection  from  injustice, 
yet  it  is  sufficient  for  us  to  know  that  the  justices 
and  freeholders  are  not  unfrequently  selected  by  the 
prosecutor,  to  perceive  at  once  the  liability  of  such 
a  system  to  gross  abuse.  Capital  offenses  committed 
by  slaves,  involving  the  nicest  questions  of  the  law, 
are  often  tried  by  courts  composed  of  persons  ignorant 
of  the  law  and  left  without  the  aid  of  counsel/' 

connection  was  the  justice  concurring  with  the  other  two  freeholders. 
Of  "justice  of  the  quorum"  simply,  and  not  in  this  connection,  D.  D. 
Wallace  (Constitutional  History  of  South  Carolina,  1725-1775,  p.  22) 
says  a  justice  of  the  quorum  exercised  notarial  rather  than  judicial 
duties. 

*Negro  Law  of  South  Carolina,  sec.  32,  p.  35. 


60  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

An  editorial  in  the  Charleston  Mercury  of  Dec.   1,   1841, 
says  that  there  ought  to  be 

"an  alteration  of  the  laws  for  the  trial  of  slaves  for 
capital  offences.  .  .  .  This  is  required  not  only 
for  humanity's  sake  .  .  .  but  for  the  interests 
of  the  slaveholder.  Not  only  the  life  of  the  slave 
but  the  property  of  the  master  are  now  in  jeopardy 
from  the  ignorance  and  malice  of  uiworthy  magis 
trates,  or  perhaps  a  packed  court  of  freeholders. 
In  some  neighborhoods  the  slave  of  a  rich  or  popular 
man  may  be  guilty  with  impunity,  while  the  slave 
of  a  poor  unpopular  man  is  made  to  pay  his  life  as 
the  penalty  of  his  master's  unpopularity.  Our  policy 
as  a  slaveholding  state  requires  that  this  species 
of  property  should  be  protected  by  a  better  system." 
Governor  Richardson  cited  reasons  in  his  annual  message 
to  the  legislature  of  1841  for  believing  that  the  usual 
actions  of  these  courts  were  overhasty: 

"The  instances  of  awakened  regret  and  contrition 
on  the  part  of  so  many  of  these  judicial  tribunals, 
involving  the  interposition  of  executive  clemency, 
to  mollify  or  arrest  their  own  hasty  and  often  illegal 
convictions,  are  of  frequent  and  ordinary  occurrence." 
And  Governor  Adams  in  1855  said  of  the  court: 

"Their  decisions  are  rarely  in  conformity  with  justice 
or  humanity.     I  have  felt  constrained  in  a  majority 
of  the  cases  brought  to  my  notice  either  to  modify  the 
sentence  or  to  set  it  aside  altogether." 
From  these  and  other  sources  that  could  be  cited  the 
evils  in  the  court  as  at  first  organized  of  which  complaint 
was  made  may  be  classified  as  follows:     First,  for  the  trial 
of  capital  offenses  the  court  as  constituted  did  not  even 
approximate  jury  trial,  or  fair  selection.     The  first  magis 
trate  to  whose  attention  the  crime  was  called,  no  matter 
what  his  prejudices  might  be,  constituted  a  sort  of  judge  and 
foreman.     This  justice  acting  without  limitation  selected 
whom  he  would  of  resident  freeholders  to  sit  with  him; 
and  the  verdict  to  convict  did  not  have  to  be  unanimous. 
Second,  there  was  no  opportunity  to  challenge  (that  is  at 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  61 

first),  either  the  presiding  magistrate  or  the  freeholders 
sitting  with  him.  Nor  was  there  any  provision  for  the 
consideration  of  any  ground  of  appeal.  From  the  act  of 
1740  it  would  seem  that  guilt  was  to  be  presumed  in  the  slave 
charged  with  crime  unless  the  court  found  otherwise. 
Third,  the  master's  or  guardian's  protection  and  defense 
of  his  ward  was  ill  considered.  It  seems  that  it  often  oc 
curred  that  slaves  or  free  negroes  were  convicted  without 
their  master's  or  guardian's  being  present  or  being  allowed 
to  be  heard  in  person  or  through  counsel.  The  Sumter 
grand  jury  in  1829  recommended  the  enactment  of  a  law 
requiring,* 

"the  magistrate  before  whom  a  slave  is  charged  with 
the  commission  of  a  crime  or  misdemeanor  to  give 
notice  to  the  owner  of  the  place  where  and  the  time 
when  said  slave  is  to  be  tried." 

This  would  seem  to  indicate  the  possibility  of  such  convic 
tion  without  the  presence  of  the  owner.  Fourth,  this 
gives  the  hint  of  another  evil,  that  these  trials  were  often 
held  in  secluded  places,  anywhere  in  the  country  where 
they  were  not  exposed  to  the  wholesome  influence  of 
publicity.  Fifth,  those  who  tried  the  case,  including  the 
magistrate,  might  be  ignorant  of  the  law,  and  often  were 
likely  to  be  swayed  by  prejudice  or  the  present  clamor 
of  opinion. 

This  seems  to  be  a  quite  sufficient  indictment  against 
the  system.  In  the  Charleston  Courier  of  September  25, 
1849,  is  a  communication  from  a  "Country  Magistrate" 
which  gives  a  clear,  unconscious  picture  of  a  slave  court. 
It  is  too  long  to  quote  in  full,  a  summary  will  have  to 
suffice:  This  magistrate,  ten  days  after  taking  office, 
was  informed  of  a  case  of  poisoning,  two  negro  women 
being  charged  with  the  crime.  The  new  official  had  never 
seen  a  trial  in  a  negro  court  and  no  lawyer  was  near.  He 
proceeded  to  summon  freeholders  and  another  magis 
trate.  One  of  the  negroes  was  found  to  be  plainly  innocent. 
The  other  appeared  to  a  majority  of  the  court  on  circum 
stantial  evidence  to  be  guilty  and  was  convicted  by  a  vote 

*MS.  records  Sumter  County. 


62  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

of  three  to  two  of  the  court,  but  none  thought  the  woman 
ought  to  be  hanged,  owing  to  the  presence  of  the  element 
of  doubt.  "But,"  it  is  added,  "it  was  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  the  whole  party — magistrates,  freeholders,  con 
stables  and  visitors — that  it  could  not  be  done  legally;" 
that  is  that  the  extreme  penalty  could  be  inflicted  or  none. 
The  negro  was  acquitted  with  the  understanding  that  she 
w^ould  be  sent  out  of  the  state,  which  the  master  consented 
to  do.  The  quotation  is  sufficient  to  show  the  irregularity 
of  the  trial  which  was  made  a  sort  of  community  affair 
where  a  poll  of  those  present  was  taken. 

Another  incident  illustrative  of  the  practical  working 
and  weakness  of  the  system  can  be  had  from  the  record  of 
a  rehearing  before  Judge  Wardlaw,  a  circuit  court  judge, 
at  chambers  in  Abbeville,  on  error.  It  was  the  case  of 
a  slave  condemned  by  a  magistrate  and  freeholders'  court 
to  be  hanged  for  burning  a  stable.  The  only  effect  of  the 
rehearing,  it  may  be  remarked,  was  to  set  aside  the  verdict 
for  the  time  being  and  grant  a  new  trial  by  another  magis 
trate  and  freeholder's  court  which  would  observe  the  proper 
procedure.  On  a  rehearing  before  a  superior  court  (pro 
visions  amending  the  old  regulations  which  will  be  dis 
cussed  in  a  few  paragraphs  further  down)  the  record  was 
the  only  evidence  submitted.  Judge  Wardlaw  set  aside 
the  verdict  on  ten  enumerated  grounds,  the  most  important 
of  which  were  that  the  records  did  not  show:  that  the 
owner  had  been  duly  notified;  that  the  freeholders  were 
residents  of  the  district  or  that  they  had  been  properly 
summoned;  that  the  witnesses  had  been  sworn;  that  any 
body  had  been  heard  in  the  negro's  defence;  that  any  defi 
nite  time  for  the  execution  had  been  fixed;  nor,  lastly, 
"that  there  was  a  distinct  statement  in  writing  of  the 
offense  for  which  the  prisoner  was  put  on  trial,  to  which 
the  testimony  was  annexed."  Of  this  last  objection 
the  court  says  further:  "An  accurate  statement  of  the 
offense  is  required,  as  well  by  the  principles  of  justice  as 
by  the  positive  words  of  the  law.  Time  .  .  .  should 
be  stated  .  .  .  place  also ;  and  the  essential  ingredients 
of  the  offense  which  contains  them,  or  by  separate  enumer 
ations."  Even  supposing  these  objections  to  have  been 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  63 

merely  technical  errors,  it  shows  a  reckless  disregard  of 
justice  to  the  accused  man  of  color.  But  it  gives  us  some 
idea  of  the  practical  workings  of  one  of  these  courts.* 

Now  the  remedies  proposed  by  governors,  grand  juries, 
editors  and  legal  writers  may  be  summed  up  as  follows: 
First,  a  limited  form  of  jury  trial  with  a  fair  number  of 
challenges  by  the  owner  or  guardian  without  cause,  and  a 
greater  number  for  cause.  Second,  that  appeal  be  allowed 
to  some  superior  court,  the  most  feasible  the  circuit  court, 
on  an  abstract  of  the  case.  Third,  that  the  trial  be  con 
ducted  publicly  at  the  court-house  seat  in  the  district. f 
Fourth,  that  some  time  between  the  verdicts  and  execu 
tion  for  capital  offenses  be  allowed  to  elapse  to  afford  an 
opportunity  for  a  review  of  the  case  by  the  Chief  Executive 
with  a  view  to  the  possible  need  for  executive  clemency. 

An  unlimited  jury  trial  could  hardly  be  expected  though 
so  loudly  and  from  some  places  apparently  so  urgently 
called  for.  The  Charleston  Mercury  of  November  30, 
1855,  in  an  editorial  comment  on  Goyernor  Adams'  re 
commendations,  points  out  the  possibility  of  abuse  in  the 
owner's  interest  by  requiring  a  unanimous  verdict  for 
conviction  and  hence  justice  might  fail. 

While  not  all,  indeed  only  a  few  and  these  very  much 
limited,  suggestions  became  laws,  it  would  be  surprising 
if  the  recommendations  did  not  have  effect  in  the  direction 
of  some  modification  and  liberalizing  of  the  trial  system. 
Section  5  of  an  act  concerning  negroes  passed  in  1831§,  gave 
the  master,  guardian  or  agent  the  right  of  challenge  for 
cause  of  any  persons  selected  to  try  a  slave  or  free  negro 

*Full  report  of  rehearing  and  objections  narrated  in  the  Abbeville 
Banner,  April  21,  1847. 

fEditorial  in  the  Charleston  Mercury,  Dec.  1,  1841,  suggested  that  if 
owing  to  the  size  of  some  of  the  districts  going  to  the  court-house  seat 
be  deemed  a  hardship,  certain  points  more  or  less  public  might  be  desig 
nated  by  law.  News  note  in  the  Southern  Patriot,  Dec.  11,  1845,  says 
that  a  bill  giving  the  owner  the  privilege  of  changing  the  venue  of  the 
trial  of  one  of  his  slaves  accused  of  crime  from  his  own  community 
to  the  court-house  passed  the  lower  house  of  the  General  Assembly  in 
that  year  but  was  thrown  out  in  the  Senate  on  a  technicality, 

§Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  467, 


64  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

for  a  capital  offense,  the  presiding  magistrate  being  the 
judge  of  the  validity  of  the  cause.  And  the  next  section 
prohibited  the  trial  of  a  slave  for  any  offense  in  the  absence 
of  the  master  or  the  master's  agent,  or  until  reasonable 
notice  to  the  master  of  the  place  and  time  of  the  trial  and 
the  offense  charged  had  been  given. 

In  1832  a  special  act  for  the  trial  of  negroes  in  the  city 
of  Charleston  required  a  unanimous  verdict  for  the  con 
viction  of  a  free  negro.* 

An  act  of  1833f  gave  the  right  to  the  accused  of  appeal  to 
the  circuit  court  from  a  negro  court  for  any  slave  or  free 
negro  convicted  of  a  capital  offense. §  The  circuit  judge 
was  to  review  the  case  from  a  report  sent  up  by  the  negro 
court.  It  seems,  however,  that  the  most  that  the  su 
perior  court  could  do  was  to  grant  a  new  trial,  from  which 
all  of  those  who  sat  in  the  first  trial  were  to  be  excluded  from 
participating.  In  1817  another  legal  process  had  been  re 
sorted  to  in  Union  district!  where  the  judge  had  upon  peti 
tion  entered  a  rule  upon  a  court  of  magistrates  and  free 
holders  to  show  cause  why  they  should  not  be  restrained 
from  carrying  into  effect  a  verdict  of  their  court  upon  a 
slave.  Later  the  complaint  was  withdrawn  and  the  rule 
dismissed.  Under  the  provisions  of  this  act  Judge  Bay 
in  circuit  set  aside  a  verdict  of  a  court  of  magistrates  and 
freeholders  in  1835  in  a  case  where  a  free  negro  had  been 
sentenced  to  death  for  the  murder  of  a  slave.  The  grounds 
upon  which  he  acted  were  that  the  oath  had  not  been 
properly  administered  and  that  magistrates  not  resident 
in  the  district  in  which  the  crime  was  committed  were 
allowed  to  sit  in  the  case.||  In  1858  three  negroes  in 
Laurens  district,  who  had  been  convicted  for  assaulting 
a  white  man  and  had  been  sentenced  to  be  hanged,  were 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  457. 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VI,  489. 

§Such  a  measure  had  been  considered  in  1820;  Charleston  Courier, 
Dec.  20,  1820. 

IMS.  records  Union  County. 

\\Charleston  Courier,  Apr.  1,  1835.  Another  is  the  case  in  Abbeville 
referred  to  above  in  this  chapter. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  65 

granted  a  new  trial  by  Judge  O'Neall  on  the  ground  that 
the  act  was  not  "malicious."* 

Another  salutary  measure  was  that,  if  requested,  the 
negro  court  had  to  allow  sufficient  time  between  the  finding 
of  a  verdict  in  a  capital  case  and  its  execution  to  give  the 
governor  ample  time  to  review  it  for  executive  clemency. 

The  laws  of  the  slave  and  negro  courts  did  not  provide 
for  the  keeping  of  any  record  of  the  trial — only  another 
evidence  of  the  irregularity  of  their  procedure, 
and  even  when  the  record  was  submitted  for  review  by 
a  superior  court  the  facts  were  sometimes  not  all  set  out, 
as  shown  by  the  Abbeville  appeal  case.  Hence  it  has  not 
been  the  good  fortune  of  the  writer  to  find  any  official 
papers  bearing  on  the  manner  in  wrhich  they  were  conduct 
ed,  f  It  is  probable  that  this  court  was  not  often  resorted 
to  except  for  the  punishment  of  capital  offenses  though 
it  had  jurisdiction  in  smaller  cases  as  well.  There  were 
likely  other  methods  more  summary  with  which  smaller 
offenses  like  petty  theft  could  be  dealt.  A  good  whipping 
by  an  outsider  when  the  offense  was  clear  and  the  evidence 
unquestioned  would  probably  have  been  acquiesced  in 
by  the  master. 

*Laurensville  Herald,  Feb.  19,  1858. 

fin  Union  district,  after  1840,  the  papers  in  cases  of  the  trial  of  slaves 
appear  to  have  been  filed  with  the  clerk  of  court  and  are  indexed  with 
the  papers  in  other  criminal  cases.  One  hundred  and  twenty-six  cases 
are  recorded  against  slaves  of  every  variety  of  criminal  charge,  includ 
ing  also  "striking  white  man,"  "slandering  white  person."  They  cannot 
all  have  been  cases  on  appeal  for  they  do  not  appear  on  the  Sessions 
Journal  at  all. 


66  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

CHAPTER    VII 
Relations  Between  Whites  and  Blacks 

To  the  slave  was  extended  the  protection  of  the  law  in  so 
far  as  enactment  and  interpretation  were  concerned.  The 
colonial  act  of  1690f  provided  a  penalty  of  three  months' 
imprisonment  for  a  master  who  should  unduly  injure  his 
slave  unless  the  injury  was  inflicted  in  an  effort  to  prevent 
his  running  away  from  due  chastisement.  By  the  law  of 
1712  a  master  was  to  be  fined  £30  for  the  murder  of  his 
own  slave  if  for  "bloodymindedness."  If  the  slave  was 
owned  by  another,  the  murderer  was  to  be  liable  to  owner 
for  the  value  of  the  slave  in  addition  to  a  fine  of  £25.  An 
act  passed  in  1722  provided  that:  "whereas  there  is  reason 
to  suspect  that  slaves  do  run  away  from  a  want  of  suf 
ficient  allowance  of  provisions"*  the  justices  of  the  peace 
should  be  empowered  to  fine  the  owner  £50  for  failure  to 
provide  sufficient  clothing  and  food  for  his  slaves;  a  sum 
larger,  it  will  be  observed,  than  for  his  murder.  If  he 
"do  run  away"  he  would  become  a  menace  to  the  neigh 
bors.  By  the  act  of  1740§  the  heaviest  penalty  that  could 
be  inflicted  for  the  murder  of  a  slave  by  a  white  person  was 
£700,  or  if  the  defendant  should  be  unable  to  pay  the  fine, 
seven  years'  imprisonment  at  hard  labor  could  be  sub 
stituted.  But  if  the  deed  was  committed  in  sudden  heat 
of  passion  the  penalty  was  to  be  a  fine  of  £10.  For  lesser 
cruelty  to  a  slave  the  fine  was  £10  and  for  not  providing 
sufficient  clothing  it  was  £3.  About  1807  a  slave  owner  in 
Charleston  had  one  of  his  slaves  to  chop  off  the  head  of 
another  slave.  Judge  Withers,  in  passing  sentence  on 
the  white  man,  expresses  regret  that  the  penalty  for  the 
murder  of  a  slave  under  such  revolting  circumstances  was 
so  light. * 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  346,  sec.  12. 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  378. 

§Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  411,  sec.  37. 

jThe  incident  was  brought  to  light  by  Mrs.  Stowe's  Key  to  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin  and  all  the  facts  were  critically  verified  later  by  Judge 
Q'Neall  in  his  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,  vol.  1,  p.  103. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  67 

An  agitation  for  making  more  severe  the  penalty  for  the 
murder  of  a  slave  was  begun  sometime  about  the  opening 
of  the  new  century.  If  we  may  believe  a  communication 
to  The  Times  (Charleston)  of  June  2,  1806,  negro  homicides 
were  occurring  frequently.  This  article  makes  the  point 
that  the  penalty  for  killing  a  negro  was  less  than  for  steal 
ing  him.  In  the  fall  of  the  same  year  a  member  of  the 
Legislature  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  introduce  a 
bill  with  this  purpose  in  view,*  but  nothing  was  done. 
However,  a  committee  was  appointed  under  joint  reso 
lution  of  both  houses  of  the  General  Assembly  f  to  recom 
mend  changes  in  the  criminal  code  after  deliberation  during 
the  recess.  This  committee  among  other  things  said: 

"But  your  committee  beg  leave  further  to  report 
that  in  the  opinion  of  the  said  joint  committee  it 
will  be  proper  to  alter  and  increase  the  present  pun 
ishments  of  the  crime  of  manslaughter  and  murdering 
a  slave." 

A  proposed  bill  accompanied  the  report,  but  no  such  law 
was  passed.  In  1808,  as  was  then  customary,  parts  of  the 
presentments  of  grand  juries  of  the  various  districts  re 
commending  certain  legislation  were  laid  before  the  law- 
making  body  by  their  respective  delegations.  From  the 
Kershaw  grand  jury  in  1808§  came  the  complaint  that  the 
existing  laws  to  prevent  the  murder  of  slaves  were  inade 
quate.  The  following  description  of  conditions  by  the 
Charleston  grand  jury  in  1816t  carries  with  it  the  seal  of 
official  authority: 

"The  grand  jury  further  present  as  a  serious  evil 
the  many  instances  of  Negro  Homicide,  which  have 
been  committed  within  the  city  for  many  years.  The 
parties  exercising  unlimited  control  as  masters  and 
mistresses,  in  the  indulgence  of  the  malignant  and 
cruel  passions  in  the  barbarous  treatment  of  slaves, 

'Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  3,  1806. 
]The  Times,  Dec.  8,  1807. 

^Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  7,  1808,  Legislative  News. 
ICity  Gazette,  Jan,   22,    1816,   quoted  by  Jervey:     Hayne  and  Hi? 
Times,  p.  68, 


68  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

using  them  worse  than  beasts  of  burden,  and  thereby 

bringing  on  the  community,  the  state  and  the  city 

the  contumely  and  opprobrium  of  the  civilized  world." 

At  the  fall  term  of  court  in  Darlington  in  1816  the  trial 

jury   in  the  case  of  a  prisoner  charged  with  negro  stealing 

returned  this  unusual  verdict: 

"Guilty.     On  the  determination  of  the  case  of  the 

said we,  the  jury  recommend  him  to  mercy, 

believing  the  crime  of  stealing  a  negro  is  not  more 
deserving  of  death  than  the  murdering  which  only 
subjects  to  fine  and  imprisonment.''! 
Notwithstanding  the  jury's  recommendation  the  prisoner 
was  sentenced  to  be  executed.     The  Southern  Patriot  of 
Dec.  1,  1819,  also  contains  a  letter  from  a  correspondent 
urging  the  death  penalty  for  murder  of  a  slave  by  a  white 
person. 

These  are  sufficient  to  show  that  there  was  a  fairly  general 
feeling  that  the  murder  of  a  slave  by  anybody  ought  to 
be  made  a  capital  offense.  But  like  all  reforms  it  had 
to  abide  its  time.  In  1820  the  feeling  was  sufficiently 
prevalent  for  Governor  Geddes  to  call  attention  in  his 
annual  message  to  the  inadequacy  of  the  penalty  as  it 
then  was,  saying  that  it  has  held  us  up  to  the  world  as 
being  inhuman  because  "a  slave  being  deprived  of  his 
natural  right  of  self-defense  against  a  white  man  the  killing 
of  him  by  the  latter  receives  from  the  circumstances  ad 
ditional  aggravation."  But  the  message  was  answered 
by  no  enactment.  According  to  McCrady*  action  was 
finally  precipitated  by  a  well  known  case  of  the  murder 
of  a  runaway  slave  by  his  master.  The  lawmaking  body 
at  last  heeded  the  demands  of  progress  and  passed  in  1821 
the  necessary  act§  making  the  murder  of  a  slave  punish 
able  with  death.  If  the  deed  should  be  committed  in  sud 
den  heat  and  passion  the  penalty  was  a  fine  of  $500  and 
six  months'  imprisonment. 

fSesdons  Record  Darlington  District,  Oct.  1816. 
*Slavery  in  South   Carolina    1670-1770,    Amer.    Assn.  Hist.    Rpts., 
1895,  p.  658. 

§Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  158. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  69 

The  effect  of  this  enactment  was  interpreted  by  the 
Court  of  Appeals  in  1834  as  follows:* 

"This  change  I  think  made  a  most  important 
alteration  in  the  law  of  his  [the  slave's]  personal 
protection.  It  in  a  criminal  point  of  view  elevated 
slaves  from  chattels  personal  to  human  beings  in  the 
peace  of  society." 

A  still  broader  interpretation  is  given  in  1852f  by  the 
same  court: 

"The  battery  of  a  slave  is  equally  with  the  battery 
of  his  owner  a  breach  of  the  peace;  and  the  license 
of  the  plaintiff  to  beat  his  slave  can  no  more  be  pleaded 
in  justification  than  the  license  of  the  plaintiff  to 
beat  himself." 

But  in  this  connection  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
master  had  an  almost  unlimited  right  of  correcting  his 
slave  and  that  if  the  slave  offered  resistance  he  would 
thereby  commit  a  crime.  It  was  thus  stated  by  the 
highest  tribunal  in  1831  :§ 

"To  a  master,  by  the  common  law  of  this  state,  a 
slave  owes  passive  obedience;  to  enforce  it  the  master 
has  the  right  of  correction,  and  if  while  exercising 
this  right,  the  slave  should  kill  his  master,  he  would 
be  guilty  at  common  law ;  .  .  .  and  his  aiders  and 
abettors  being  present  would  be  guilty  of  the  same 
offense." 

The  question  naturally  arises,  how  well  was  the  law 
against  slave  murder  enforced?  For  this  information  we 
may  secure  some  light  from  the  criminal  court  records  in 
the  offices  of  the  clerks  of  court  in  the  various  counties. 
Many  of  these  have  been  destroyed  or  are  in  a  bad  state 
of  preservation.  But  sufficient  more  or  less  fragmentary 
records  are  available  to  form  some  idea  of  the  prevalence 
of  the  crime  and  the  checking  influence  of  the  courts. 

*2  Hill  (Law),  453:  State  vs.  Maner.  See  also  Cheatwood  case, 
ibid,  p.  459. 

|4  Richardson  (Law),  75:     Watson  vs.  Hamilton. 

§2  Bailey  (Law),  75:  State  vs.  Crank. 


70  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

Before  we  come  to  these  we  can  refer  to  a  few  more  or 
less  noteworthy  examples  of  the  convictions  of  white 
persons  for  the  murder  of  slaves,  f  One  was  the  execution 
of  a  white  man  in  Marlborough  district  in  1852  for  the 
murder  of  a  female  slave.*  Another  conviction  was  in 
Chester  district,  where  a  white  man  was  convicted  in  the 
Sessions  Court  in  1834.  It  was  appealed  to  the  higher 
court  but  the  verdict  of  the  lower  court  was  reaffirmed.! 
In  the  Pendleton  Messenger  of  December  9,  1838,  appears 
a  statement  by  Governor  P.  M.  Butler,  setting  forth  the 
reasons  why  he  refused  clemency  to  a  youth  in  Richland 
district  who  had  wantonly  killed  a  slave,  although  a 

fit  is  altogether  probable  that  there  were  other  cases  of  conviction 
of  whites  for  murder  in  the  first  degree  where  the  victim  was  a  negro. 
The  records  of  some  of  the  counties,  now  destroyed,  might  have  shown 
such  cases  and  those  at  some  of  the  county  seats  which  the  writer  did 
not  visit  might  disclose  others.  It  is,  however,  likely  that  the  number 
was  not  great;  these  mentioned  are  so  referred  to  because  of  their 
attracting  considerable  attention  at  the  time. 

*MS.  records  of  Marlborough  County,  Oct.,  1852,  Criminal  Papers, 
485.  The  indictment  covers  four  pages  of  large-sized  paper  closely 
written.  Twenty-three  witnesses  were  summoned  by  the  prosecution 
and  eleven  by  the  defense.  The  slave  hired  from  another  was  in  the 
control  of  the  defendant.  The  indictment  alleges  torture  for  a  period 
of  three  months.  He,  with  others  of  the  same  family  name,  had  been 
more  than  once  indicted  for  cruelty  to  slaves  and  general  disturbance 
of  the  peace  of  the  community.  Though  the  records  are  silent,  it  is 
the  recollection  of  elderly  persons  of  the  community  still  living  that  he 
was  duly  executed  for  the  crime. 

§2  Hill  (Law),  459:  State  vs.  Cheatwood;  MS.  records  Chester 
County;  no  sentence,  however,  is  recorded.  Featherstonaugh:  Ex 
cursion  Through  the  Slave  States,  vol.  2,  p.  345.  The  incidents  of  the 
case  are  related  by  Featherstonaugh,  an  Englishman  who  was  traveling 
in  this  country  at  the  time  and  had  the  uncomfortable  misfortune  of 
riding  with  the  convicted  man  and  the  deputy  in  the  same  stage  from 
Columbia  to  Chester.  According  to  this  account  the  prisoner  had  been 
in  the  habit  of  gambling  with  negroes,  which  was  then  regarded  as 
about  the  meanest  thing  a  white  man  could  do.  The  negro,  who  was 
the  victim  of  the  murderous  attack  of  the  white  man  on  a  particular 
night,  proved  to  be  the  more  shrewd  player  and  won  all  the  stakes. 
This  enraged  the  white  man  and  the  result  above  stated  followed.  Prob 
ably  because  of  the  prejudice  against  gambling  with  negroes,  no  len 
iency  was  shown  the  prisoner,  which  might  under  other  circumstances 
have  prevented  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  71 

largely  signed  petition  had  been  before  him  praying  for 
the  mercy  of  the  Executive.  The  account  does  not  state 
whether  the  sentence  was  finally  carried  to  execution  or 
not,  but  it  probably  was.  Still  another  in  Colleton  dis 
trict  was  the  case  of  the  "Broxton  Bridge  Horror,"*  where 
two  white  men,  one  the  son  of  the  owner  of  the  slave  and 
the  other  a  white  assistant,  who  together,  on  capturing 
the  slave  after  his  having  run  away,  put  him  to  death  by 
torture  extending  over  a  day  and  a  night.  The  Colleton 
case  and  the  Marlborough  cases  were  revolting  in  the 
extreme.  In  the  former  case  the  militia  were  on  duty 
at  the  execution  by  the  Governor's  orders  to  prevent  any 
attempt  at  rescue. 

The  criminal  records  of  Sumter  district  are  practically 
complete  from  1827  to  1854.  During  this  period  of  nearly 
thirty  years  there  were  eleven  bills  charging  murder  of 
slaves  by  white  persons  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  grand 
jury  by  the  solicitor.  In  the  case  of  three  the  grand  jury 
reported  "no  bill."  As  to  one  of  these  three  they  reported 
after  the  "no  bill"  this  explanation:  "bad  treatment,  not 
intentional  murder."  Another  bill  at  the  same  term  of 
court  was  returned  against  the  same  person  charging  the 
murder  of  a  slave — whether  it  was  for  the  same  offense  or 
on  another  separate  charge  does  not  appear.  The  prisoner 
was  arraigned,  tried  and  acquitted.  In  the  other  cases, 
six  were  tried  and  found  "not  guilty."  Of  the  remaining 
two,  one  pleaded  guilty,  but  no  sentence  is  recorded; 
while  the  last  received  a  verdict  "true  bill  on  second  count," 
no  sentence  being  entered. 

The  first  slave  case  recorded  in  an  old  fragmentary  record 
under  date  of  1812  in  the  clerk  of  court's  office  at  Darling 
ton  is  an  "indictment  for  killing  a  negro,"  the  defendant 
on  the  following  year  being  found  "not  guilty."  A  case 
returned  "true  bill"  appears  in  1825  but  no  further  trace 
of  its  final  disposal  could  be  found.  From  1840  to  1861 
there  were  three  indictments  for  slave  murder  recorded. 
They  were  disposed  of  as  follows:  for  the  first  a  verdict, 

*7  Richardson  (Law),  327:  State  vs.  Motley;  State  vs.  Blackledge. 
O'Neall:  Annals  of  Newberry,  p.  319 — Appendix. 


72  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

"guilty,  self  defense,"  is  the  return,  meaning  probably 
justifiable  homicide;  the  second  was  found  not  guilty, 
the  indictment  during  the  progress  of  the  trial  having  been 
changed  from  murder  to  ''murder  in  sudden  heat  and  pas 
sion;"  opposite  the  third  is  recorded  "not  arrested."  This 
latter  case  the  grand  jury  took  up  and  presented  the  sheriff 
for  non-performance  of  duty.  Later  the  records  show  that 
a  true  bill  had  been  found  against  the  person  in  the  last 
case,  but  he  probably  escaped  justice  in  the  end,  as  no  further 
record  in  reference  to  him  appears. 

The  Williamsburg  county  records  are  fragmentary  down 
to  1840,  and  are  more  or  less  confused  and  crudely  tran 
scribed,  and  the  dockets  often  fail  to  show  whether  the 
cases  were  acted  upon  even  by  the  grand  jury.  However, 
in  such  records  as  are  preserved  from  1817  to  1860  ten 
bills  for  the  murder  of  slaves  by  whites  are  entered.  Of 
these  "true  bills"  are  returned  in  only  four  cases  with  no 
convictions.  In  the  other  six  cases  there  appears  "struck 
off"  or  no  further  mention. 

In  Newberry  district*,  from  1840  to  1860,  there  were 
five  charges  for  slave  murder  entered.  One  defendant 
pleaded  guilty  in  1855  but  no  record  as  to  the  sentence  is 
available.  The  other  four  came  to  trial  and  the  defendants 
wrere  acquitted. 

In  the  records  of  Kershaw  county,  dating  back  as  far  as 
1789,  though  those  for  a  period  of  twenty-three  years  are 
missing  and  those  preserved  are  otherwise  unsatisfactory, 
we  find  six  persons  charged  with  murder  of  negroes;  the 
defendant  in  one  case  was  sentenced  to  be  hanged  for  anoth 
er  offense;  in  another  case  a  "no  bill"  was  returned  by  the 
grand  jury;  in  two  instances  a  "true  bill'  is  twice  returned 
for  each  case  but  no  trial  appears  to  have  taken  place; 
in  two  cases  the  defendants  were  put  upon  their  trial  and 
acquitted.  In  these  six  cases  is  included  one  in  1806 
under  the  charge  of  "burning  a  negroe;"  it  was  on  this 
case  that  the  grand  jury  refused  to  bring  an  indictment. 

For  Marlborough  district  the  sessions  records  contain 
the  one  already  mentioned  (p.  70) ;  only  three  cases  of 

*Only  an  "Index"  of  the  criminal  cases  before  1857  is  preserved. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  73 

slave  murder  by  whites  besides  in  two  of  which  the  investi 
gation  led  to  "no  bill;"  in  another,  in  1819 — before  the 
murder  of  a  slave  was  made  a  capital  offense — the  trial 
jury  found  the  defendant  guilty  of  manslaughter  and  the 
following  sentence  is  recorded:  "360  old  currency — to 
remain  in  custody  until  fine  and  both  are  paid." 

The  records  of  Union  district  from  1804  to  1860  have 
five  cases  of  slave  murder  recorded.  In  the  first,  in  1804, 
the  defendant  was  convicted  and  fined  $100  and  the  costs 
of  the  suit.  Two  of  the  others  are  found  not  guilty;  in 
one  no  indictment  was  returned  by  the  grand  jury;  in 
another  case  no  mention  of  its  final  disposal  is  made. 

From  the  available  records  of  Spartanburg  district  from 
1806  to  1860  there  are  four  persons  charged  writh  slave 
murder.  One  was  found  guilty  in  1815,  the  sentence 
being  "that  he  remain  in  goal  until  he  pays  the  fine  of 
seven  hundred  pounds  of  old  currency."  In  1816  two 
white  men  were  charged  with  the  murder  of  the  same  negro, 
the  verdict  ot  the  jury  being,  "We  find  the  defendants 
guilty  of  killing  by  undue  correction,"  and  the  sentence 
was  "that  they  pay  the  sum  of  three  hundred  and  fifty 
pounds  old  currency  each  and  to  stand  committed  until 
the  fine  is  paid."  In  another,  in  1818,  the  defendant  pleaded 
guilty  but  no  sentence  is  recorded.  The  last,  in  1849, 
was  nolle  pressed. 

The  indexed  criminal  records  of  Laurens  county  extend 
ing  back  to  1801  contain  nine  bills  charging  murder  of 
slaves  by  whites.  The  defendants  in  two  of  the  cases 
were  found  "guilty  on  the  second  count,"  the  sentence 
in  one  instance  being  $500  and  six  months'  imprisonment, 
but  in  the  other  no  sentence  was  found  recorded.  In  a 
third  case  the  defendant  was  found  guilty  of  manslaughter 
and  sentenced  to  a  fine  of  $500  and  imprisonment  for  three 
weeks.  In  a  fourth  case  the  only  record  left  is  that  op 
posite  it  in  the  docket,  "guilty  and  sentenced."  Of  the 
remaining  five  cases  one  was  struck  from  the  docket,  while 
the  other  four  were  brought  to  trial  and  the  defendants 
acquitted. 

Unless  it  escaped  the  search  of  the  writer  or  appeared 
on  an  unpreserved  record,  no  case  of  slave  murder  against 


74  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

whites  was  brought  in  Greenville  from  1806  to  1860. 
By  the  census  of  1810  there  were  five  whites  for  every 
negro  in  this  district,  and  in  1850  there  were  three  whites 
for  every  negro. 

There  is  nothing  in  any  of  these  records  to  show  what 
relation  the  aggressor  sustained  to  the  slave,  whether  master, 
owner's  overseer,  or  purely  an  outsider.  It  is  a  reasonable 
conjecture,  however,  that  in  case  the  majority  of  offenses 
had  been  committed  by  outsiders  or  even  by  an  overseer, 
more  convictions  would  have  been  secured  from  a  more 
vigorous  prosecution  of  the  charge.  In  the  Southern 
Chronicle  of  Aug.  26,  1846,  was  the  notice  of  a  reward  of 
$100  offered  by  the  Governor  for  the  apprehension  of  one 
who  had  killed  a  slave  belonging  to  another  person.  Speak 
ing  generally,  if  the  deed  was  committed  by  a  person  who 
had  property  it  is  more  than  likely  that  a  civil  action  would 
have  been  brought  by  the  owner,  and  unless  it  were  a 
flagrant  outrage  probably  no  criminal  action  at  all  would 
be  taken.  In  any  case  there  was  every  advantage  of  the 
benefit  of  a  doubt  given  a  white  man  who  murdered  a 
slave — the  disparity  of  racial  condition  was  so  great.  It 
would  then  be  difficult  to  secure  the  conviction  of  a  white 
man  under  any  circumstances.  The  property  interest  of 
the  master  could  not  have  failed  to  be  a  source  of  protection 
to  his  slave.  The  property  interest  in  some  measure  at 
least  protected  the  slave  from  violence  at  the  hands  of 
the  master  himself  and  caused  the  latter  to  secure  over 
seers  who  he  thought  would  not  likely  offend  along  this 
line.  But  increased  difficulty  would  be  encountered  in 
bringing  to  justice  the  slaveowner  who  even  unjustly  took 
the  life  of  his  slave.  The  expense  and  trouble  of  the  prose 
cution  of  a  person  who  had  more  or  less  of  wealth  and  social 
prestige  as  a  defense  was  great.  The  evidence  would 
likely  be  scant — only  negroes,  if  anybody,  would  probably 
be  witnesses  and  they  could  not  testify  against  a  white 
person.  And  then  the  master  could  very  easily  enter  the 
plea  that  it  occurred  as  the  result  of  resistance  on  the  part 
of  the  slave  to  lawful  correction.  Here  the  matter  in  all 
probability  most  often  ended.  Where  death  resulted  from 
cruelty, unless  it  were  sudden  and  violent  and  its  inhumanity 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  75 

was  apparent,  it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  the  case 
ever  came  to  the  attention  of  the  courts  at  all.  However, 
the  Laurensville  Herald  of  February  5,  1858,  has  a  strong 
editorial  condemning  cruelty  to  slaves  and  uses  as  an 
illustration  the  case  of  a  white  man  who  had  caused  the 
death  of  his  slaves  by  ill  treatment.  It  appears  that  a 
committee  of  citizens  in  the  community  had  waited  upon 
this  particular  slaveowner  and  demanded  that  he  leave 
the  community  at  once,  which  he  did.  After  relating  this 
incident  (of  a  kind  rarely  committed  to  print  in  ante-bellum 
days)  the  editor  gives  full  approval  of  the  irregular  proceed 
ing  of  this  master's  neighbors. 

What  has  just  been  said  as  to  the  probabilities  of  a  white 
person  taking  the  life  of  a  slave  is  applicable  to  the  question 
of  the  humane  treatment  of  the  slave  by  the  whites.  The 
criminal  dockets  of  the  nine  counties  before  mentioned 
yield  more  data  on  this  point  than  on  the  former.  The 
law  of  1740f  provided  no  higher  penalty  than  a  fine  of 
£100  for  any  cruelty  to  a  slave,  even  mutilation  and  loss 
of  member  not  endangering  life.  By  an  act  of  1841*  the 
unlawful  whipping  of  a  slave  was  punishable  by  a  maximum 
penalty  of  a  fine  of  $500  or  six  months'  imprisonment. 
But  this  act  made  it  quite  clear  that  exception  was  to  be 
made  in  the  case  of  the  owner  or  overseer,  or  one  to  whom 
the  slave  had  offered  insult  or  insolence.  To  make  this 
"lawful"  correction  entirely  permissible  an  act  was  passed 
in  1858§  in  which  it  was  clearly  set  forth  that  the  master 
did  have  the  right  to  administer  such  punishment  as  was 
necessary  in  the  proper  discipline  and  control  of  his  slaves. 

The  sessions  dockets  of  the  courts  have  a  number  of 
charges  entered,  such  as  "unlawfully  whipping  a  slave," 
"cruelty  to  slave,"  "assault  and  battery  on  a  slave," 
"unlawfully  beating  a  slave."  On  the  available  sessions 
docket  of  Sumter  county  from  1827  to  1854  there  are 
entered  thirteen  such  cases.  Two  defendants  pleaded 
guilty;  five  were  convicted  but  no  recorded  sentence  appears 

tStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  411,  sec.  37. 
'Statutes  at  Large  XI,  169. 
§Statutes  at  Large,  XII,  629. 


76  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

except  for  one  where  the  fine  is  $1.     Six  of  these  cases  are 
either  dropped  or  without  further  record. 

In  Darlington  district  for  twenty  years,  from  1840  to  1861, 
there  were  twenty-three  such  cases.  Two  came  to  trial, 
one  in  1847  and  one  in  1848,  and  verdicts  of  guilty  render 
ed  with  fines  of  $25  and  $62.50  respectively  imposed.  Three 
more  cases  were  tried  and  guilt  established  but  no  record 
occurs  of  any  penalties  imposed.  The  remaining  eighteen 
are  returned  "no  bill ;"  either  the  defendants  were  acquitted, 
or  the  record  fails  to  show  any  further  action  in  the  case. 

In  Williamsburg  district  from  1840  to  1860  twelve  such 
cases  appear  on  the  docket,  of  which  the  record  shows  no 
conviction  and  only  six  reach  the  stage  of  "true  bill"  and 
these  are  struck  from  the  record  later. 

In  Newberry  district  from  1842  to  1860  there  were  only 
seven  such  indictments  with  convictions  recorded  in  only 
two  of  them  but  with  no  penalties  attached. 

Ther^  is  no  record  of  any  indictment  being  brought 
against  a  white  person  in  Kershaw  district  for  cruelty  to 
slaves. 

It  is  different  in  Marlborough  district,  where  negroes 
were  apparently  well  protected.  Nine  such  cases  appear 
on  the  docket,  three  being  brought  at  intervals  against 
the  same  person.  In  only  two  cases  did  the  grand  jury 
fail  to  indict  and  in  each  of  the  remaining  seven  convic 
tions  were  secured.  The  fines  were  $20  and  $25  except 
in  the  case  of  one  defendant  who  pleaded  guilty  and  the 
fine  was  fixed  at  $1.  Imprisonment  was  the  sentence  in 
three  cases — in  one  for  a  term  of  one  week,  in  another  for 
ten  days  and  in  another  three  months.  The  grand  jury 
in  1847  presented  the  same  person  referred  to  above  as 
having  later  been  indicted  three  times  for  cruelty  as  follows : 
"For  beating,  tearing  with  dogs  and  otherwise 
cruelly  treating  two  negroes  (namely  Rina  and  Julia), 

the  property  of  Mrs. — ,  and  disturbing  the 

neighborhood  with  riotous  and  disorderly  conduct." 
Similar  presentments  of  cruelty  were  made  by  the  grand 
jury  in  1849.     Again,  in  1855  an  owner  was  "presented" 
"for  not  feeding  and  clothing  his  negroes." 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  77 

In  Union  district  twenty- two  cases  for  cruelty  to  slaves 
were  considered.  The  defendant  in  one  case  pleaded  guilty ; 
in  only  four  others  were  convictions  reached,  though  the 
record  in  none  of  the  cases  could  be  found. 

In  Spartanburg  district,  according  to  the  available 
records,  five  cases  of  cruelty  to  slaves  are  noted,  in  only 
one  of  which  a  conviction  is  reached,  the  sentence  being 
one  month's  imprisonment. 

In  Greenville  district  ten  cases  charging  bad  treatment 
of  slaves  were  brought  up.  One  case  in  1856  is  marked 
"settled."  In  only  three  of  the  others  is  there  a  conviction 
secured,  the  defendant  in  one  being  fined  $1 ;  in  another  the 
sentence  is  a  fine  of  $20  and  four  months'  imprisonment; 
in  the  last  no  sentence  appears. 

In  Laurens  district  three  such  cases  were  brought  up; 
one  was  returned  by  the  grand  jury  "no  bill;"  in  another 
the  fine  was  $5;  the  last,  apparently  an  unwarranted  dis 
turbance  of  negroes  probably  at  religious  worship  by  white 
persons,  for  the  charge  also  includes  disturbance  of  re 
ligious  worship,  the  defendant  was  fined  $20  and  imprison 
ment  one  month. 

In  a  letter  to  The  Rising  Sun  (Newberry)  of  April  20, 
1859,  from  Greenville,  which  was  included  in  his  judicial 
circuit,  Judge  O'Neall  says  that  in  the  court  then  just 
closed  quite  a  large  number  of  the  cases  on  the  docket 
were  "trespass  for  hitting  or  beating  a  slave." 

In  this  connection  three  phases  of  the  subject  should 
be  noted:  First,  as  already  stated,  in  the  case  of  the  mur 
der  of  a  slave  the  master's  property  interest  in  the  slave 
in  a  large  measure  protected  him  from  the  outsider.  It 
is  probable  that  the  cases  of  convictions  noted  may  have 
been  from  outside  aggressors  caused  by  a  prosecution  by 
the  master.  We  must  think  of  the  owner  as  standing  ready 
to  punish  by  legal  means  any  person  who  should  presume 
unprovoked  to  punish  or  whip  any  of  his  slaves.  But 
while  it  was  not  lawful  perhaps  there  was  a  sort  of  unwritten 
law*  among  the  white  population  that  a  negro  caught 
stealing  could  be  whipped  with  impunity ;  and  it  sometimes 

*Recollection  of  elderly  people  still  living. 


78  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

occurred  that  on  a  person's  making  complaint  to  the 
master  of  theft  by  the  latter's  slave,  though  the  complain 
ant  was  not  a  slaveholder,  the  master  would  turn  the  slave 
over  to  him  for  castigation.  The  master  would  possibly 
find  this  outside  correction  a  means  of  checking  the  evil 
of  the  slave's  leaving  his  cabin  at  night.  Such  cases  would 
arise — as  we  know  one  in  Newberry  did — from  undue 
interference  of  the  patrol. f 

In  the  next  place  a  difficulty  in  such  prosecutions  arose 
in  securing  evidence.  No  person  of  color  could  testify 
against  a  white  person.*  Thus  it  was  that  only  exceptional 
cases  based  largely  on  circumstantial  evidence  were  brought. 
This  difficulty  applies  also  in  the  case  of  the  murder  of  a 
slave.  In  one  of  the  records  just  referred  to,  a  case  in 
1844,  in  which  all  the  papers  are  preserved,  it  is  shown 
by  the  affidavits  of  white  persons  that  the  person  charged 
with  the  murder,  together  with  another  white  man,  caught 
the  negro  stealing  potatoes,  that  they  were  seen  to  disappear 
in  a  swamp  forcing  the  negro  along  with  them  with  a  rope 
around  his  neck,  beating  him  all  the  while.  A  few  days 
afterwards  the  negro  was  found  dead  in  the  swamp  as  a  result 
probably  of  such  treatment.  Notwithstanding  the  prob 
ability  that  there  was  a  strong  prosecution  by  the  master, 
the  defendants  were  acquitted. 

The  last  point  to  be  noted  is  the  undoubted  necessity 
of  more  or  less  severe  corporal  punishment  to  keep  the 
slaves  under  control.  Hence  the  master  and  his  overseer 
were  given  by  law  and  public  sentiment  considerable 
latitude.  Only  the  most  flagrant  violations  of  humanity 
were  ever  likely  to  find  their  way  into  the  courts,  and  even 
then  the  accused  had  the  decided  advantage  of  every  pos 
sible  doubt.  In  other  words,  the  plantation  was  a  sort  of 
governmental  unit  as  to  police  control  of  the  slave,  and  to 
its  head,  the  slaveowner,  was  given  in  large  measure  the 

flndex  to  Sessions  Record  of  Newberry  1849  and  1852.  5  Strobhart 
(Law),  21:  State  vs.  Boozer  et  all,  decided  in  1850. 

*By  Act  of  1740,  Statutes  at  LargevVII,  411,  sec.  39,  when  a  white 
person  was  charged  with  beating  the  slave  of  another  and  no  white 
person  could  qualify  as  a  witness  he  was  to  be  adjudged  guilty  if  he 
refused  to  plead. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  79 

sovereign  management  of  its  affairs  under  certain  restric 
tions.  Similarly,  in  a  series  of  articles  on  ''Prospects  of 
Southern  Agriculture,"  in  DeBow's  Review^  is  this  state 
ment: 

"The  cultivator  of  the  soil  is  a  ruler.  The  slave 
owner  is  more — he  is  to  a  certain  extent  necessarily 
a  despot.  He  makes  the  regulations  that  govern  his 
plantation  and  he  executes  them.  It  is  true  he  is 
amenable  to  public  opinion  for  his  acts  and  any  fla 
grant  outrage  is  visited  by  the  laws;  but  there  are  a 
thousand  incidents  of  plantation  life  concealed  from 
public  view  which  the  law  cannot  reach." 


CHAPTER    VI  I  I 
Trading  with  Slaves 

One  of  the  most  frequent  charges  with  reference  to 
negroes  noted  on  the  criminal  dockets  of  the  sessions 
court  is  "trading  with  slaves,"  "unlawful  trading  with 
slaves,"  or  "unlawful  trafficking  with  slaves."  It  is  not 
difficult  to  understand  the  reason  for  the  enactment  of 
laws  prohibiting  with  more  or  less  severe  penalties  any 
person  from  trading  with  a  slave.  If  unrestricted  it  would 
have  meant  the  indiscriminate  petty  stealing  of  farm  pro 
duce,  corn,  cotton,  rice,  fowls,  eggs  and  almost  anything 
else  by  the  slaves,  which  opportunity  might  offer.  This 
they  would  sell  to  the  unscrupulous  for  a  pittance  that 
would  afford  a  sort  of  income  which  their  condition  other 
wise  prevented  securing.  The  selling  of  articles  to  slaves 
for  money  or  in  barter  was  also  prohibited  for  the  same 
reason.  The  laws  against  slave  trading,  however,  were 
one  of  the  best  illustrations  of  laws  that  are  put  on  the 
statute  books  to  be  used  as  occasion  demanded.  They 
were  systematically  disregarded  by  farmer  and  merchant 

IXXII,  189. 


80  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

when  the  slave  was  known  to  be  reliable,  or  when  he  was 
sent  on  an  errand  to  make  a  purchase.  The  enactments 
were  intended  to  reach  the  person  wTho  took  advantage 
of  the  illegal  traffic  for  the  sake  of  the  profit  when  he  neces 
sarily  knew  it  was  done  without  the  consent  of  the  master. 
"The  negro  trader"  was  regarded  in  much  the  same  light, 
though  in  a  greatly  modified  sense,  as  the  person  who  stole 
slaves.  By  virtue  of  his  business,  he  became  an  enemy 
of  his  fellows  and  a  menace  to  the  established  order  of 
society,  a  disturber  of  the  peace  of  the  community.  Trad 
ing  with  slaves  carried  with  it  a  social  stigma  that  hampered 
one's  reputation.  "He  is  a  negro  trader"  was  one  of  the 
most  disagreeable  terms  that  could  be  applied  to  a  white 
man.  Some  merchants  who  did  a  small  business  carried 
on  this  kind  of  illicit  bartering,  for  it  yielded  large  profits 
as  a  reward  so  long  as  his  dealings  were  undetected  and 
so  long  as  he  did  not  incur  the  positive  hatred  of  the  com 
munity.  Pedlers  were  often  looked  upon  askance  because 
they  sold  to  slaves. 

When  a  slave  appeared  in  the  broad  open  day  with  money 
and   offered   to   make   a   purchase   it   seems  that   reliable 
merchants  sold  to  him,  taking  the  offer  of  money -as  evi 
dence  that  he  was  making  the  purchase  for  the  master  or 
at  least  with  the  master's  knowledge  and  consent,  although 
strictly  this  was  unlawful  trading  making  the  person  so 
engaged  liable  to  the  penalties  of  the  act.     The  provisions 
of  the  laws  prohibited  any  trading  with  a  slave  unless  he 
produced  a  written  permit  from  his  master  or  the  overseer 
in  whose  charge  he  wras.     The  Charleston  Courier  of  June 
5,  1816,  comments  editorially  on  a  case  recently  decided 
by  the  court,  that  any  acceptance  of  money  from  a  slave 
without  a  ticket  in  trade  is  unlawful  trafficking;  it  says: 
"The  decision  is  of  some  importance  to  retailers 
and  most  of  the  trading  part  of  the  community.     It 
has  been  found  a  general  practice  with  them,  we  are 
informed,   to   take   money   from   slaves    without   the 
owner's  permission  to  trade.     The  money  has  been 
regarded  as  the  permit.     And  unless  where  the  large 
ness  of  the  sum  has  excited  suspicion,  that  the  slave 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  81 

has  not  come  fairly  by  it,  the  money  offered  has  been 
rarely  refused.  It  will  now  be  seen  that  this  is  illegal: 
and  that  whosoever  receives  to  the  value  of  one  cent 
from  a  slave  without  the  written  permission  of  the 
owner  or  manager  violates  a  public  law  and  sub 
jects  himself  to  a  penalty  of  $200. 

"The  law  was  passed  for  the  benefit  of  slaveholders. 
They   must  not  find   fault    then  when   they  send  a 
slave  to  a  shop,  that  he  is  sent  home  without  the  article 
wanted  because  seven  pence  cannot  be  received  without 
a    ticket    from    the    master.     Ye    owners    of    slaves, 
hereafter   keep   your   ink   by   you   or    go  yourselves 
for  what  you  want.     The  shopkeeper,  who  does  not 
require  this  of  you  is  unjust  to  himself." 
Trading  and  selling  by  negroes — free  negroes  as  well  as 
slaves — was   looked  upon    as  an  evil  at    an  early  period 
because  it  afforded  encouragement  to  theft.     The  Charles 
ton  grand  jury  several  times  called  attention  to  it.     The 
following  section  of    their  presentment  in  1737  will  serve 
as  an  illustration:* 

"We  present  as  a  grievance  the  practice  of  negroes 
buying  and  selling  wares  in  the  streets  of  Charleston, 
whereby  stolen  goods  may  be  concealed  and  after 
wards  vended  undiscovered,  as  also  negroes  going 
in  boats  and  canoes  up  the  country  trading  with 
negroes  in  a  clandestine  way." 

But  none  of  the  laws  up  to  1796  were  severe.  They  were 
enacted  more  with  a  view  to  reaching  and  punishing  the 
slave  than  punishing  the  white  man  who  became  his  ac 
complice  by  trading  with  him;  for  example  the  act  of  175 If 
provided  for  only  a  fine  of  forty  shillings  for  unlawful  trad 
ing  by  a  white  person.  ^ 
Apparently  it  was 'soon  realized  that  more  severe  meas-  ( 
ures  must  be  resorted  to  and  that  the  slave  from  his  inherent 
racial  thieving  tendencies  would  take  the  risk  of  a  whipping 
so  long  as  there  was  some  one  who  \would  lend  his  aid 
by  becoming  the  purchaser  of  his  stolen  goods.  The  act 

*South  Carolina  Gazette,  Nov.  5,  1737. 
tStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  423,  sec.  13, 


82  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

of  1796*  made  the  maximum  penalty  for  trading  with  a 
slave  without  a  permit  $200.  But  this  seems  to  have 
been  an  insufficient  deterrent — indeed,  increasing  of 
penalties  appears  to  have  had  but  little  effect.  Hence 
in  1817  another  act  was  passed  which  recited  the  reason 
for  its  enactment  as  follows  :f 

"Whereas  it  is  found  by  experience  that  the  penalties 
heretofore  imposed  on  shopkeepers  and  other  traders 
who  deal  with  negroes  without  permission  of  their 
owners,  are  insufficient,  and  have  not  answered  the 
ends  intended  .  .  .  ." 

This  statute  imposed  a  maximum  fine  of  $1,000  and  twelve 
months'  imprisonment  on  any  shopkeeper  or  his  clerk 
who  should  buy  from  a  slave  without  his  master's  permit, 
"corn,  rice,  peas,  or  other  grain,  bacon,  flour,  tobacco, 
indigo,  cotton,  hay  or  other  article  whatsoever."  The 
person  trading  with  the  slave  was  required  to  retain  the 
written  permit  as  a  warrant  for  his  trading.  In  1834 
another  law§  prohibited  the  purchase  of  the  usual  farm 
produce  from  a  slave  "either  with  or  without  a  permit" 
from  his  master  under  the  same  penalties  as  provided  in  the 
act  of  1817.  When  a  shopkeeper  was  charged  with  having 
received  from  a  slave  any  such  articles  the  burden  of  proof 
to  the  contrary  rested  with  the  accused.  The  Charleston 
Courier,  in  a  lengthy  editorial  on  April  18,  1835,  says  that 
dealers  thought  that  this  latter  law  would  seriously  inter 
fere  with  their  business,  but  the  opinion  of  the  editor  was 
that  it  would  not  interfere  with  traffic  that  was  understood 
not  to  be  repugnant  to  the  interests  of  the  community 
but  to  reach  the  liquor  dealer;  his  popular  interpretation 
of  the  new  law  is  worth  quoting: 

"Under  the  former  law  the  usage  has  been  to  sell 
the  necessaries  and  innocent  conveniences  of  life  to 
the  slave  without  a  permit.  The  new  law  contains 
nothing  to  render  this  usage  more  unlawful  than  it 
was  before,  and  we  can  see  no  good  reason  why  it 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  434. 
fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  454. 
§Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  516. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  83 

cannot   still    be   innocently   indulged    in.     The    main 
object  of  the  old  law  was  to  lessen  the  danger  of  the 
depredation  on  the  property  of  owners  by  making  it 
highly  penal  to  purchase  from  or  traffic  with   their 
slaves.     The  main  object  of  the  new  law  is  to  prevent 
slaves  from  being  corrupted  in  their  habits  and  ruined 
in  their  constitutions  by  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors." 
But  these  two  acts  failed  effectually  to  check  the  un 
lawful  and  aggravating  traffic.     The  Sumter  grand  jury 
had  said  in  1828:* 

"The  grand  jury  of  Sumter  district  present  as  a 
grievance  the  permission  to  shopkeepers  and  others 
to  trade  with  negroes  after  dark,  even  with  a  ticket 
from  their  owners,  and  submit  the  propriety  of  the 
passage  of  a  law  by  the  Legislature,  imposing  a  heavy 
penalty  upon  any  one  convicted  of  trading  with  a 
negro  after  dark  or  on  the  Sabbath  even  with  a  permit 
from  the  owner." 

This  same  body  again  in  1834  said,  in  speaking  of  negro 
trading,  that  it  "has  become  the  chief  object  of  pursuit 
and  the* chief  source  of  gain"  of  many  and  they  appealed  to 
every  good  citizen  to  contribute  his  exertion  to  put  it  down. 
The  following  notice  appearing  in  the  Rising  Sun  (New- 
berry)  of  Jan.  18,  1860,  shows  the  determination  of  one  slave 
owner  to  stop  unlawful  trading: 

"I  will  give  $500  for  proof  to  convict  for  any  one 
buying  pork,  corn,  fodder  or  any  other  produce  from 
my  negroes  without  a  special  order  from  me  in  my 
own  handwriting." 

The  following  open  letter  to  farmers  by  "A  Citizen,"  pub 
lished  in  the  Farmer  and  Planter  of  July,  1857,  shows  the 
kind  of  small  trafficking  that  is  winked  at  and  soon  shades 
into  the  irresponsible  and  menacing  trade : 

"Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  liberties  now 
allowed  to  negroes.  Who  thinks  it  necessary  to  ask 
for  a  ticket  or  permit  to  trade?  Just  give  a  fellow 
some  chickens,  a  stolen  turkey,  or  a  bushel  of  corn, 

*MS.  records  Sumter  County. 


84  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

and  let  him  pace  the  streets  and  see  how  many  and 
how  respectable  are  the  purchasers.  This  I  adduce 
as  the  evidence  of  a  loose  rein,  yes,  an  uncurbed  privi 
lege.  Constant  usage  for  some  time  has  rendered  it 
common  and  unseemingly  justifiable,  but  this  will 
lead  to  ruin  if  not  arrested.  Let  a  white  man  go  to 
town  and  offer  a  few  bushels  of  potatoes  for  sale  and 
he  ...  is  told  Mr.  -  -  and  Mrs.  - 

negroes  bring  them  here  every  day  at  such  and  such 
a  price.  I  am  not  talking  of  this  matter  as  a  pecuniary 
consideration  but  alone  to  show  the  widespread  ruin 
that  awaits  us  as  slaveholders,  unless  this  thing  is 
checked  and  our  negroes  are  brought  to  chalk  a  line, 
and  the  only  means  available  is  in  our  prompt  action 
with  the  offending.  If  you  will  not  inflict  upon  them 
the  punishment  provided  by  our  laws,  then  inflict 
that  one  of  caste  and  disgrace.  Make  him  feel  his 
inferiority,  and  feel  it,  too,  in  his  pocket,  the  surest 
road  to  the  heart  of  such  offenders;  better  this  than 
the  ruin  that  awaits  you  in  your  present  course." 
The  magazine  then  comments  editorially  on  the  com 
munication  as  follows: 

"The  following  communication  is  received  just  at 
a  time,  owing  to  local  circumstances,  we  feel  strongly 
inclined  to  put  a  stop  to  a  prevailing  practice  that 
is  having  a  bad  effect  on  our  slaves.  Custom  we  know 
has  done  much  toward  tolerating  the  practice  of  buy 
ing  from  slaves,  but  we  think  it  high  time  to  put  a 
stop  to  the  custom.  We  never  could  see  any  more 
propriety  in  one  man  buying  poultry,  eggs,  etc., 
from  a  negro  than  in  another  buying  meat,  corn,  or 
other  products  not  usually  made  by  the  slave.  The 
latter  practice  is  much  less t  frequent  than  the  former. 
"Also,  turn  over  a  new  leaf  with  your  overseer, 
exact  a  greater  degree  of  vigilance  and  use  the  same 
yourself.  .  .  .  It  is  indispensable  for  the  welfare 
of  all  concerned," 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  85 

The  two  selections  above  were  copied  in  the  Laurensville 
Herald  with  the  following  comment  by  that  paper  :f 

"We  honestly  believe  that  more  injury  is  done  to 
the  slaves  by  trafficking  with  them  than  in  any  other 

way 

"We  earnestly  call  upon  our  housekeepers  to  set 
their  faces  against  trafficking  with  negroes  without 
permission  from  their  owners.  One  of  the  greatest 
complaints  made  by  our  friends  in  the  country  against 
the  village  is,  that  they  will  traffick  with  their  negroes, 
thereby  encouraging  them  to  steal  and  giving  them 
the  means  of  buying  liquor  and  to  engage  in  gambling. 
The  fact  is,  we  look  upon  it  as  a  very  dishonest  trans 
action." 

One  thing  which  encouraged  the  trading,  indeed,  made 
much  of  it  necessary,  was  the  humane  custom  of  allowing 
to  the  slave  a  garden,  or  cotton  or  corn  patch  to  be  culti 
vated  after  work  hours  or  after  a  task  had  been  finished, 
or  the  privilege  of  raising  poultry,  the  products  of  which 
the  slave  was  allowed  to  dispose  of  as  he  might  see  fit. 
This  made  some  selling  by  the  slave  of  his  products  neces 
sary,  and  the  frequency  of  such  a  custom  caused  owners 
to  neglect  to  furnish  the  legal  permit.     The  custom  of  this 
side  farm  found  its  way  into  Grayson's  Hireling  and  Slave: 
"Calm  in  his  peaceful  home  the  slave  prepares 
His  garden  spot,  and  plies  his  rustic  cares; 
The  comb  and  honey  that  his  bees  afford, 
The  eggs  in  ample  gourd  compactly  stored, 
The  pig,  the  poultry,  with  a  chapman's  art, 
He  sells  or  barters  at  the  village  mart, 
Or  at  the  master's  mansion,  never  fails 
An  ampler  price  to  find  and  readier  sales." 
Often  the  produce  was  bought  by  the  master  or  sold  at 
the  market  by  him  to  overcome  this  very  objection  of 
unlawful  traffic.*     The  serious  objection  to  this  encourage- 

fThe  comment  of  the  Herald  is  reproduced  in  the  July  number  of 
the  Farmer  and  Planter. 

*Olmsted:  Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  68;  Pamphlet:  Refutations 
of  Calumnies  against  the  Southern  and  Western  States. 


86  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

ment  of  the  slave's  thrift  lay  in  the  fact  that  it  helped  to 
cover  up  his  thefts  from  other  people  in  the  community,  f 
Furthermore  the  objection  could  be  made  that  it  put  money 
in  his  hands  for  evil  purposes,  buying  liquor  and  gambling. 
This  latter  objection  does  not  appear  to  have  been  much 
advanced,  since  probably  the  owner's  interest  in  keeping 
the  slaves  up  to  the  highest  point  of  industrial  efficiency 
would  cause  him  to  refuse  such  privileges  to  his  slaves 
if  they  were  taken  advantage  of  in  this  way. 

A  large  majority  of  the  cases  relating  to  slavery  that 
appeared  on  the  dockets  of  the  sessions  courts  were  charges 
against  white  persons  for  trading  with  slaves.  Anything 
more  than  the  briefest  summary  of  the  cases  tried  and  how 
disposed  of  would  give  but  little  light  on  the  subject.  But 
these  dockets  will  be  suggestive  as  to  the  proportion  of 
the  convictions  and  the  penalties  imposed. 

In  Williamsburg  district  the  available  dockets  from  1817 
to  1860  show  that  about  35  per  cent,  of  the  indictments 
reached  conviction.  The  highest  penalty  imposed  was  in 
1856  when  a  fine  of  $100  and  two  months'  imprisonment 
was  the  sentence. 

The  records  of  Darlington  district  show  convictions  in 
about  40  per  cent,  of  the  indictments.  The  penalties  range 
from  one  month's  imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  $20  to  six 
months  and  a  fine  of  $250.  The  fines  and  terms  of  im 
prisonment  are  evidently  arranged  with  a  view  to  suiting 
the  punishment  to  the  relative  financial  condition  of  the 
convicts;  some  are  given  a  term  of  imprisonment  with  no 
fine  while  others  are  given  from  one  to  three  months'  term 
with  a  heavier  fine. 

In  Sumter  district,  where  it  seems  that  for  some  reason 
the  law  was  better  enforced,  the  records  from  1827  to  1860 
show  that  there  were  convictions  in  about  48  per  cent. 
of  the  cases  brought  for  negro  trading.  For  a  period  of 
four  years,  1827-1831,  the  authorities  appear  to  have  laid 
a  heavy  hand  on  the  unlawful  traders,  there  being  ten 
convictions  out  of  a  total  of  fourteen  cases.  The  heaviest 
sentence  was  a  fine  of  $500  and  four  months'  imprisonment 

^DeBaw's  Review,  XVII,  424. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  87 

—the  fine  was  " remitted,"  however,  by  the  governor.  In 
five  of  the  other  cases  the  fine  was  $200  with  varying 
terms  of  imprisonment.  The  effect  was  noticeable;  for  a 
decade  the  percentage  of  indictments  for  trading  with 
slaves  was  unusually  small. 

In  Kershaw  district  the  records  show  convictions  in 
about  38  per  cent,  of  the  indictments.  The  journal  is 
very  unsatisfactory,  often  stating  the  mere  fact  of  con 
viction  with  no  sentence  attached.  In  two  cases,  in  1808 
and  1809,  the  penalty  was  a  fine  of  $200  and  costs;  in  an 
other  in  1845  the  penalty  was  six  weeks'  imprisonment. 

For  Marlborough  district  the  percentage  of  convictions 
is  43.  The  highest  punishment  imposed  was  six  months' 
imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  $200;  the  smallest  penalty 
was  a  fine  of  $50;  in  another  case  it  was  fixed  at  $50  and  one 
month's  imprisonment. 

The  records  of  Greenville  district  from  1817  to  1860 
reveal  convictions  in  only  about  20  per  cent,  of  the  cases 
tried.  The  heaviest  penalty  imposed  was  in  1843  and  was 
two  months'  imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  $100;  in  another 
the  sentence  was  one  month's  imprisonment  and  a  fine 
of  one  cent.  The  large  percentage  of  women  charged  is 
noticeably  higher  than  in  those  of  any  other  district  visited. 

Convictions  in  39  per  cent,  of  the  cases  brought  in 
Spartanburg  district  from  1806  to  1860  were  reached. 
The  penalties  imposed  range  from  two  weeks'  imprison 
ment  and  a  fine  of  $1  to  five  months  and  $100.  There 
seems  at  no  time  to  have  been  any  long  sustained  effort 
to  break  up  the  evil  as  was  the  case  in  Sumter  district. 

Union  district  presents,  for  its  population,  a  very  large 
array  of  indictments  for  negro  trading  and  succeeded  in 
convicting  only  30  per  cent,  of  the  persons  so  charged  in 
the  period,  1815-1860.  The  sentences  recorded  are  the 
usual  ones,  ranging  not  higher  than  a  fine  of  $100  and  the 
usual  term  of  a  few  months'  imprisonment. 

The  docket  in  Laurens  district  shows  nothing  more  than 
ordinary  in  the  prosecution  of  offenders  against  the  law 
prohibiting  whites  from  trading  with  negroes.  Convictions 
were  secured  in  about  42  per  cent,  of  the  cases  brought. 
The  sentence  in  one  case  was  a  fine  of  $500;  in  another, 


88  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

$200  and  three  months'  imprisonment;  while  in  another 
it  was  as  small  as  a  fine  of  $1  and  one  month's  imprison 
ment. 

Probably  in  quite  a  number  of  these  cases  cited  the 
charge  was  compromised  by  the  persons  concerned,  thus 
making  the  indictments  and  convictions  fewer  than  they 
would  have  been.  The  cases  appearing  on  the  dockets 
do  not  give  even  a  comparatively  approximate  idea  of 
the  number  of  offenses  as  the  cases  of  stealing  of  slaves 
do.  Many  an  illicit  trader  was  never  brought  to  justice 
because  of  the  expense  and  trouble  as  compared  with  the 
value  of  the  stolen  articles  trafficked  in  and  because  of 
lack  of  evidence  sufficient  to  convict. 

This  matter  of  securing  the  evidence  necessary  to  con 
viction  was  one  of  the  greatest  difficulties  to  be  overcome. 
Where  illicit  trading  was  suspected  the  master  would  often 
send  his  slave  with  instructions  to  effect  a  bargain  while 
he  was  near  in  hiding.  The  Constitutional  Court  held  in 
1819*  that  trading  with  a  slave  in  the  presence  of  his 
master,  the  latter  failing  to  sanction  it,  would  be  construed 
as  illicit  trading.  The  difficult  legal  situation  led  a  con 
tributor  to  the  Charleston  Mercury  of  Dec.  5,  1859,  to 
consider  the  advisability  of  accepting  the  oath  of  a  negro 
in  court  against  a  white  man  for  trading,  provided  the  slave's 
master  would  testify  to  the  truthfulness  of  the  negro  offered 
as  a  witness. 

But  with  all  these  precautions  the  enforcement  of  the 
law  in  the  ordinary  way  seemed  near  to  impossible.  It 
will  be  explained  in  a  later  chapter  that  there  were  organized, 
particularly  about  1859,  unofficial  community  associations 
for  the  purpose  of  dealing  with  the  abolitionists  and  other 
incendiary  persons.  But  as  early  as  1850  there  had  existed 
similar  organizations  for  dealing  with  the  illicit  trader. 
Indeed  it  is  quite  probable  that  it  is  these  same  earlier 
protective  societies  against  negro  trading  that  were  later 
turned  into  societies  to  protect  against  abolitionism  as 
well,  or  at  least  added  this  to  the  list  of  the  things  they 
would  attend  to;  or,  the  disturbed  feelings  of  1859  gave 

*2  Nott  &  McCord,  27:  State  vs.  Anone. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  89 

rise  to  other  organically  new  societies  framed  on  the  same 
model.  But  these  earlier  organizations  with  vigilance 
committees  were  formed  to  compass  the  evil  of  negro  trading 
by  lawful  prosecution  if  possible,  and  by  extra-legal  methods 
if  necessary.  The  description  of  one  such  organization 
will  suffice  as  an  illustration:  At  Cartersville  (now  in 
Florence  county),  a  small  country  village,  a  meeting  of 
the  citizens  of  the  community  was  held,  determined  to 
stamp  out  trafficking  with  slaves.*  They  appear  to  have 
had  in  mind  unlawful  means  of  dealing  with  the  evil,  for 
the  first  of  their  resolutions  passed  was  that  they  would 
boycott  any  attorney  who  would  undertake  to  prosecute 
their  society.  They  themselves  passed  resolutions  favorable 
to  a  heavier  punishment  for  trading  to  the  extent  that  any 
person  so  convicted  should  be  disqualified  from  giving 
evidence  before  a  court  or  of  voting  or  enjoying  any  of 
the  privileges  of  citizenship.  The  Darlington  paper  re 
marked  editorially  on  the  meeting  as  follows:! 

"The  proceedings  of  the  Vigilance  Society  will  be 
read  with  interest.     The  negro  traders  about  Carters 
ville  have  raised  a  set  of  men  who  will  give  them  trouble. 
Let  us  be  vigilant,  watchful  and  discreet,  determined 
and  unyielding;  these  rascals  can  be  conquered." 
A  news  note  in  the  Keowee  Courier  (Pickens)  of  February 
19,  1859,  has  the  following: 

"Trafficking  with  Slaves — A  number  of  the  citizens 
of  Abbeville  District,  assembled  on  the  15th  ult.  for 
the  purpose  of  taking  measures  to  prevent  illicit  traffic 
between  mean  white  men  and  the  slaves.  A  vigilance 
committee  was  appointed  to  rid  the  neighborhood  of 
these  pests." 

These  movements,  as  has  just  been  said,  indicate  the 
ineffectiveness  of  the  legal  means  of  dealing  with  the  situ 
ation.  There  was  one  penalty  that  had  not  been  tried — 
that  was  whipping  for  the  person  so  offending.  In  1850, 
Governor  Seabrook  had  the  following  to  say  of  the  traffic 
and  its  possible  remedy: 

The  Farmer  and  Planter,  Dec.,  1857. 
fQuoted  in  the  Farmer  and  Planter,  Dec.,  1857. 


90  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

''Unlawful  trading  and  trafficking  with  slaves,  by 
which  a  white  person  knowingly  inflicts  upon  society, 
and  especially  his  vicinage,  widespread  and  prolific 
evils,  is  perhaps  one  of  the  very  few  offenses  deserv 
ing  of  corporal  punishment." 

In  1853  the  grand  jury  of  Spartanburg  district  had  noted 
the  growing  evil  of  negro  trading  and  had  made  the  follow 
ing  recommendation,  which  was  repeated  in  substance 
in  1857: 

"Present  as  a  Nuisance  the  existing  Laws  relating  to 
the  punishment  of  Persons  convicted  for  trading  with 
Slaves — that  in  many  cases,  perhaps  the  majority, 
fine  and  imprisonment  does  not  operate  as  a  correc 
tive  to  the  evil — and  recommend  that  the  law  should 
be  so  altered  as  to  superadd  the  punishment  of  whip 
ping,  in  such  cases  as  it  may  be  proper  in  the  opinion 
of  the  court  to  inflict." 

In  the  spring  of  1857  and  again  at  the  fall  term  the  Union 
grand  jury,  after  noting  that  the  law  was  a  dead  letter, 
recommended  that  the  punishment  be  made  corporal. 
The  Williamsburg  grand  jury  in  the  fall  of  1857  recom 
mended  that  the  legislature  make  whipping  the  punish 
ment  for  negro  trading.  A  meeting  at  Darlington  discussed 
unlawful  trafficking  and  passed  resolutions,  one  of  which 
was  a  memorial  that  for  the  second  offense  whipping  be 
made  the  penalty. 

The  general  assembly  at  its  session  that  winter  passed 
the  necessary  act,*  providing  that  upon  a  second  convic 
tion  for  negro  trading  the  offender  might,  unless  it  hap 
pened  to  be  a  white  woman,  in  addition  to  other  penalties, 
receive  thirty-nine  lashes. 

It  is  not  probable  that  this  penalty  was  ever  suffered  by 
many,  if  it  ever  occurred  at  all.  None  of  the  sessions 
journals  of  the  districts  examined  by  the  writer  records 
such  a  sentence.  It  was  probably  intended  more  as  a 
deterrent  than  as  an  actual  penalty.  When  this  extreme 
measure  was  resorted  to,  it  is  more  probable  that  it  was 

*Statutes  at  Large,  XII,  526.  A  bill  similar  in  its  provisions  had 
been  before  the  lower  house  in  1850.  Journals  of  the  House. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  91 

done  by  the  hands  of  a  mob.  The  debate  in  the  senate 
on  the  measure  is  enlightening.  Senator  Tillinghast  op 
posed  it  in  toto.  Senator  Moses,  who  seems  to  have  had 
the  bill  in  charge,  stated  that  there  were  many  requests 
before  the  committee  which  had  the  bill  under  consideration 
from  grand  juries  requesting  its  passage;  he  felt  that  the 
state  had  more  to  fear  from  the  illicit  trader  than  from  the 
abolitionist;  "the  people  have  been  compelled  to  organize 
themselves  into  vigilance  committees  and  inflict  punish 
ment  with  the  lash  upon  such  offenders;"  imprisonment 
had  been  found  to  be  ineffective;  gambling  with  negroes 
was  common  all  over  the  state  until  whipping  was  made 
the  penalty  for  it.f  Senator  Irby  approved  of  the  bill, 
expressing  the  belief  that  the  threat  of  corporal  punish 
ment  would  be  sufficient  to  cause  them  to  leave  the  com 
munity  rather  than  submit  to  it.  In  the  case  of  gambling 
only  one  person  to  his  knowledge  had  been  whipped  as 
punishment.* 

Another  phase  of  unlawful  negro  trading  was  selling  or 
bartering  liquor  to  slaves.  There  was  perhaps  much  less 
difficulty  encountered  in  preventing  this  than  in  preventing 
other  illicit  trading,  for  under  no  circumstances  is  it  ordi 
narily  to  be  presumed  that  it  was  agreeable  to  the  master 
for  his  slaves  to  have  whiskey.  If  the  master  desired  it 
for  his  own  use  there  was  no  great  difficulty  about  sending 
a  written  order,  which  was  probably  done.  To  keep  liquor 
from  the  slave  was  to  the  interest  of  everybody  except 
the  dealer  in  such  wares;  the  master's  interest  was  in  having 
a  sober  laborer,  the  community's  interest  was  in  having 
an  orderly  negro  in  their  midst.  These  interests  together 
perhaps  fairly  well  controlled  its  sale  to  the  negro  in  the 

tStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  468,  sec.  6,  Act  1834. 

*The  debate  is  reported  fully  in  the  Charleston  Courier  of  Dec.  7, 
1857.  Possibly  the  case  referred  to  in  Laurens  by  Senator  Irby  is  the 
one  on  the  criminal  records  for  that  district  in  1852  and  where  the 
defendant  was  given  a  sentence  of  twenty  lashes.  Very  few  cases 
came  before  the  courts.  The  only  other  of  the  kind  that  came  to  the 
writer's  notice  was  one  in  Greenville  in  1836  where  the  defendant, 
upon  conviction,  received  the  following  sentence:  "Twenty  lashes, 
imprisonment  for  two  weeks;  $20  recognizance  for  good  behavior." 


92  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

rural  sections.  Still,  sometimes  it  was  the  case  that  masters 
gave  a  small  allowance  of  liquor  to  the  slaves  on  holiday 
occasions.  Perhaps  this  custom  is  referred  to  in  a  present 
ment  of  the  grand  jury  of  Marlborough  district  in  1849: 
"We  present  as  a  grievance  the  pernicious  practice  of  al 
lowing  negroes  the  free  use  of  ardent  spirits. "f 

The  act  of  1740  provided  a  fine*  of  £5  for  selling  liquor 
to  a  slave  without  a  permit.  It  would  seem,  however, 
that  until  late  in  the  slavery  regime  the  laws  on  trading  were 
usually  resorted  to  to  punish  the  person  who  sold  liquor  to 
a  slave. §  This  further  bears  out  the  former,  statement 
that  the  securing  of  liquor  by  slaves  was  not  so  common. 
The  penalties  for  trading  were  adequate  and  there  would 
be  less  question  as  to  the  circumstances  surrounding  the 
deal  to  interfere  with  its  enforcement.  Even  after  a 
specific  act  on  selling  spirits  to  slaves  was  passed  probably 
the  case  continued  to  be  brought  under  the  charge  of  un 
lawful  trading,  for  the  penalties  were  heavier.  In  none 
of  the  dockets  to  which  the  writer  has  had  access  is  there 
any  indictment  brought  under  the  specific  charge  of  liquor 
selling  until  1840  or  thereabouts.  But  in  1858  the  Court  of 
Appeals  decided  that  a  person  for  one  case  of  selling  liquor 
to  a  slave  could  not  be  convicted  for  illicit  trading  and  then 
for  selling  of  liquor  to  a  slave.* 

In  1831 1|  a  law  was  enacted  prohibiting  any  free  negro 
from  owning  or  operating  a  still  under  a  penalty  of  fifty 
lashes.  The  wisdom  of  this  as  a  police  precaution  is  quite 
evident.  No  master  was  allowed  under  a  penalty  of  a  fine 
of  $100  and  imprisonment  for  one  month  to  allow  any  of 
his  slaves  to  have  any  part  in  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  alcoholic  beverages.  In  1850  a  white  man  in  Laurens 

fMS.  records  Marlborough  County. 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  408,  sec.  32. 

§This  seems  to  be  the  method  resorted  to  and  so  interpreted  by  the 
Constitutional  Court  as  legal  and  that  one  could  twice  be  convicted  for 
the  same  offense,  for  unlawful  selling  of  whiskey  and  for  trading  with 
slaves.  2  Nott  &  McCord  (Law),  280:  State  vs.  Sonnerkalb,  decided 
in  1820. 

*11  Richardson  (Law),  447:  State  vs.  Brock. 
| (Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  467. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  93 

district  was  found  guilty  in  two  cases  for  "suffering  slave 
to  vend  spirituous  liquors"  and  fined  $50  in  each  instance. 
In  1834  an  act  was  passed*  prohibiting,  under  a  penalty  of 
a  fine  of  $100  and  six  months'  imprisonment,  selling  liquor 
to  a  slave  without  a  permit  from  his  master.  Every  vendor 
of  alcoholic  beverages  was  to  be  required  before  his  license 
was  issued  to  take  an  oath  not  to  sell  to  any  slave  any 
liquor  unless  on  a  permit  from  his  master  or  overseer, 
and  on  application  for  a  renewal  of  his  license  he  was  to  be 
required  to  take  oath  that  he  had  not  heretofore  sold 
liquor  to  slaves  in  violation  of  law. 

As  to  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  just  referred  to  some 
occasional  reference  will  throw  light  upon  the  question. 
In  1744  the  Charleston  grand  jury  complained  of  the  habit 
of  selling  rum  to  negroes. f  In  the  Columbia  Free  Press 
and  Hive  of  September  3,  1831,  is  an  open  communication 
from  "Good  Order"  which  for  the  light  it  gives  is  quoted 
in  full: 

"To  the  Honorable  Town  Council  of  Columbia: 

"As  the  licenses  for  the  retailing  of  spirituous  liquors 
will  soon  expire  I  take  the  liberty  of  respectfully 
calling  your  attention  to  the  situation  of  certain 
licensed  Grog  Shops  in  this  town. 

"It  is  a  fact  public  and  notorious  that  many  re 
tailers  are  in  the  constant  habit,  day  and  night  and 
more  especially  on  Sundays,  of  selling  liquor  to  the 
negroes,  in  utter  defiance  of  the  laws  of  the  state 
and  of  the  corporation. 

"The  Council  have  the  power  of  putting  a  stop  to 
practices  so  disgraceful  to  the  town  and  ruinous  to 
negro  property. 

"If  the  Council  will  on  the  first  of  October  next 
refuse  licenses  to  all  those  shopkeepers  whose  houses 
have  been  the  notorious  resort  of  negroes  the  evil 
will  be  in  a  great  measure  remedied.  Such  a  measure 
will  meet  the  support  of  every  friend  of 
"Good  Order." 

'Statutes  at  Large,  VI,  468. 

\South  Carolina  Gazette,  Nov.  5,  1744. 


94  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

Here  the  reader  may  be  cited  again  to  the  report  of  Mayor 
Robert  Y.  Hayne,  of  Charleston,  in  1837,  quoted  in  a 
chapter  below,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  effort  being  made 
to  break  up  the  connection  of  the  colored  population  with 
the  dram  shops.  The  report  of  Mayor  William  Porcher 
Miles  in  1857  is  even  better  and  the  part  relating  to  this 
phase  is  quoted  in  full:* 

"When  the  police  was  reorganized  one  of  the  first 
objects  to  which  their  attention  was  strenuously 
directed  was  the  suppression  of  the  practice  of  selling 
liquor  to  slaves  and  of  the  illegal  traffic  with  them 
generally.  The  extent  to  which  this  nefarious  busi 
ness  is  carried  on  would  surprise  and  alarm  the  com 
munity  were  they  thoroughly  informed  on  the  sub 
ject.  The  number  of  shops  where  the  negroes  habitu 
ally  meet  to  drink  and  gamble,  with  the  proceeds 
frequently  of  the  robbery  of  their  masters,  is  very 
great.  The  daily  confession  of  the  negroes  themselves, 
in  the  police  court,  would  be  sufficient  to  convince 
any  one  who  might  entertain  a  doubt  on  the  subject. 
Against  this  great  and  crying  evil  the  police  have 
waged  a  constant  war.  They  have  thus  made  them 
selves  odious  to  a  large  and  (as  far  as  elections  go) 
influential  class.  And  here  I  deem  it  my  solemn  duty 
to  urge  upon  the  citizens  of  Charleston  the  necessity 
of  some  more  efficient  legislation  for  the  remedy  of 
abuses  which  are  tending  to  undermine  the  institu 
tion  of  slavery  in  our  very  midst,  year  after  year,  by 
the  moral  as  well  as  the  physical  deterioration  of  our 
negroes." 

A  summary  of  the  police  court  proceedings  written  daily 
for  the  Evening  News,  of  Charleston,  in  1856,  taken  for 
the  month  of  September  as  a  representative  month,  shows 
that  nearly  all  the  cases  against  negroes  originate  in  drunk 
enness  or  may  in  some  way  be  connected  with  it. 

Governor  Allston,  in  1857,  in  his  annual  message  deplores 
the  fact  that  there  is  so  much  unlawful  selling  of  liquor 
to  slaves.  While  he  makes  this  statement  there  is  no 

*Pamphlet:     Mayor's  Report  on  City  Affairs  of  Charleston,  1857. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  95 

reason  to  believe  that  it  was  such  a  widespread  evil  or 
such  a  systematic  disregard  of  the  law  as  there  was  in  the 
case  of  illicit  trading  with  slaves.  The  law  was  often 
doubtless  violated,  but  it  was  not  common  or  uncontrol- 
able.* 


CHAPTER    IX 
Slaves  Hiring  Their  Own  Time 

Up  to  this  point  we  have  considered  the  slave  almost 
exclusively  as  an  agricultural  laborer,  living  on  a  large 
plantation  and  working  under  an  overseer  and  driver,  or 
in  smaller  groups  on  small  farms  working  perhaps  along 
with  the  owner  and  the  owner's  sons.  The  system  of 
control  for  this  kind  of  laborers,  all  grouped  together  on 
small  farms  with  a  generous  sprinkling  of  whites  or  on  the 
larger  plantations  where  whites  were  fewer,  is  comparatively 
simple.  But  as  time  went  on  many  of  the  negroes  came  to 
adapt  themselves  in  some  measure  to  their  surroundings 
and  to  acquire  considerable  skill  as  mechanics,  blacksmiths, 
carpenters  or  similar  partially  skilled  laborers.  If  the 
plantation  were  large  the  most  apt  in  any  line,  for  instance 
as  carpenter,  was  likely  to  be  kept  at  that  kind  of  work 
on  the  place  all  the  time.  On  the  smaller  farms  no  such 
opportunity  for  developing  and  making  constant  use  of 
such  special  skill  was  offered.  Hence  often  the  owners 
hired  slaves  who  showed  mechanical  skill,  to  other  men 
engaged  in  that  kind  of  undertaking,  because  the  remuner 
ation  for  such  services  per^year  usually  netted  a  better 
income  than  when  retained  as  a  "farm  hand."  Slaves 
might,  of  course,  be  hired  to  others  to  work  on  farms  as 
well.  But  this  was  not  a  permanent  arrangement,  for  the 
renting  out  of  a  slave  in  this  way  was  not  ordinarily  profit- 

*The  cases  on  the  sessions  dockets  are  few  in  number — another  evi 
dence  of  the  probability  that  the  cases  were  brought  merely  for  trading — 
and  not  sufficient  for  comparisons,  but  in  the  few  cases  found  the  penal 
ties  were  similar  to  those  imposed  for  trading. 


96  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

able,  because  slaves  under  overwork  would  rapidly  deteri 
orate  and  the  payment  made  for  them  for  this  purpose 
was  not  considerable.  But  it  sometimes  occurred  as  a 
shift  for  settling  up  an  estate,  where  the  executor  did  not 
wish  the  farm  responsibility,  or  where  the  owner  had  a 
surplus  laborer  and  disliked  to  break  up  the  family,  f 

In  all  these  cases  the  person  to  whom  the  slave  was  hired 
came  to  sustain  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  the  same  relation  to 
the  slave  to  protect,  care  for,  and  restrain  as  did  the  master. 
The  master,  of  course,  always  had  recourse  by  law  to  recover 
his  slave  from  the  custody  of  the  person  to  whom  he  was 
hired  in  case  of  cruelty  or  lack  of  proper  sustentation. 

It  was  not  always  the  case  that  a  slave  could  be  hired 
to  another  person  except  for  a  long  period  of  time,  but  he 
might  be  able  to  earn  for  his  master  a  good  income  by  job 
work  at  odd  times,  realizing  more  than  for  being  hired  to 
another  for  a  long  time.  But  working  out  on  odd  jobs 
necessarily  took  him  out  from  under  the  eye  and  direct 
supervision  of  the  master,  and  nobody  else's  control  was 
substituted  for  that  of  the  master.  It  is  easy  to  see  how 
a  slave  might  be  employed  in  this  way  exclusively  as  a 
source  of  income  to  the  master  so  long  as  he  proved  faithful, 
industrious  and  orderly.  This  privilege  would  afford  him 
quite  a  good  deal  more  of  freedom  than  the  field  hand  had. 
It  may  here  be  remarked  that  the  place  of  a  field  hand  was 
regarded  by  the  slave  as  the  most  menial,  so  much  so  that 
a  threat  to  a  house  servant  that  he  would  be  transferred 
to  the  field  was  usually  quite  sufficient  to  make  him  more 
diligent  and  attentive  to  his  duties.  Thus  it  often  came 
about  that  in  many  cases  the  master  had  a  complete  ar 
rangement  or  agreement  with  his  slave  that  the  latter  would 
be  allowed  to  work  at  his  trade,  or  job  work,  going  and 
coming  as  he  pleased  provided  he  brought  the  master  each 

t  Negroes  for  Hire 

On  Monday,  the  1st  of  January  next,  before  the  court-house  in  Colum 
bia,  will  be  hired  for  one  year,  the  negroes  belonging  to  the  children  of 

,  deceased,  by  order  of  the  guardian. 

Dec.  22.  . 

Southern  Times  and  State  Gazette,  Dec.  22.   1837.     See  also  Harley 
vs.  DeWitt,  2  Hill  (Chancery),  367,  in  1835. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  97 

week  or  month  a  specified  sum  or  part  of  his  earnings, 
all  over  and  above  that  amount  being  allowed  to  the  slave. 

This  was  called  the  slave's  "hiring  out  his  time,"  or 
more  accurately  it  was  the  master  "hiring  out"  the  slave's 
time  to  the  slave  himself  for  which  the  slave  paid  a  stipu 
lated  amount.  The  custom  of  "hiring  out"  the  slave's 
time  was  not  common  in  the  rural  districts.  At  any  rate 
it  was  not  so  common  as  in  the  cities  and  smaller  towns, 
where  it  came  to  be  really  the  established  economic  order 
of  things.  Indeed,  in  the  cities  where  a  slaveowner  kept 
slaves  with  him  on  his  premises  his  relation  to  the  public 
was  not  unlike  the  liveryman.  The  advantage  to  the  master 
was  that  the  slave  needed  less  constant  care  than  the  horse. 
This  statement,  however,  is  not  to  be  taken  to  imply  that 
there  was  a  distinct  class  considerable  in  numbers  who 
thus,  so  to  speak,  capitalized  their  slaves.  The  slavery 
system  was  based  essentially  on  the  agricultural  regime 
and  no  other.  Its  system  of  control  was  fixed  on  the  basis 
of  the  slave's  forever  remaining  a  "field  hand"  or  at  ^best 
remaining  attached  to  a  plantation.  But  the  city  had 
other  work  for  the  slave  to  do  which  rendered  the  original 
plan  of  regulation  cumbersome  and  unsuitable.  The 
gradual  advance  of  the  negroes  in  acquiring  skill  was  slowly 
solving  the  problem  of  emancipation.  It  would  seem  that 
this  hiring  out  of  the  slave  would  have  proven  to  be  the 
point  of  departure  from  the  old  slavery  system  to  a  new 
economic  organization  of  labor;  not  that  the  movement 
would  have  been  rapid  in  South  Carolina,  much  more 
conservatism  being  felt  here  than  in  most  other  slave- 
holding  communities. 

Legal  emancipation  except  by  special  enactment  was 
forbidden  after  1820.  But  the  hiring  of  their  own  time  to 
slaves  was  often  used  to  bring  about  virtually  the  same 
result.  It  sometimes  was  the  reward  of  faithfulness  or 
the  way  of  showing  unusual  interest  in  any  particular 
slave.  Here  opens  a  field  of  conjecture:  How  soon  would 
an  industrial  emancipation  of  the  fittest  have  been  accom 
plished  by  this  quasi-freedom?  Would  it  have  ever  reached 
the  negroes  on  the  plantation?  There  is  very  serious  doubt 
whether  slaves  allowed  during  the  greater  part  of  their 


98  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

lifetime  to  hire  their  own  time  were  ever  afterwards  held 
as  slaves  by  heirs  of  the  estate. 

But  this  system  of  hiring  slaves  their  time  involved 
certain  difficulties.  It  made  the  slaves  so  favored  practi 
cally  free  from  control  and  gave  opportunities  for  becoming 
disorderly  in  the  community.  Indeed,  it  sometimes  en 
couraged  their  becoming  idle  and  indulged  their  indolence, 
and  in  order  to  meet  the  weekly  payments  to  their  masters, 
the  price  of  their  quasi-freedom,  they  had  an  unfortunate 
inducement  to  steal.  A  communication  to  the  Charleston 
Courier  of  September  12,  1850,  complained  that  no  domestic 
servants  could  be  had  because  the  slaves  were  allowed  to 
hire  their  time  and  then  complain  to  their  master  at  the 
end  of  the  month  that  they  could  secure  no  work  to  do. 
The  grand  jury  of  Union  district  had  the  following  to  say 
in  the  spring  of  1857  of  the  custom  of  hiring  to  negroes 
their  time:* 

4 'Certain  individuals  are  in  the  habit  of  hiring  out 
to  their  slave  his  own  time  which  he  spends  in  traffick 
ing  about  over  the  country  very  much  to  the  loss  of 
the  farmer  who  finds  it  difficult  to  supply  his  own  table 
with  eggs  and  poultry.  Everything  is  picked  up  by 
these  negro  pedlars  and  as  there  is  a  sort  of  free  masonry 
about  negro  intercourse  it  is  hard  to  detect  the  wrong 
doer." 

To  the  same  effect  is  a  quotation  from  an  editorial  in  the 
Rising  Sun  (Newberry)  of  May  19,  1858,  that  gives  the 
worst  possible  view  of  the  custom;  very  probably  the 
picture  is  much  overdrawn: 

"We  believe  now,  always  have  believed  and  always 
will  believe  while  we  can  kick,  that  the  plan  of  hiring 
slaves  their  own  time  is  unwise,  impolitic  and  works 
injury  to  the  hired  as  well  as  to  the  other  slaves  where- 
ever  they  are  thrown.  It  renders  slaves  dissatisfied, 
makes  them  worthless  and  lazy,  corrupts  and  spoils 
them,  and  all  others  with  whom  they  associate.  They 
become  liars,  rogues,  villains  and  perpetrate  anything 
that  will  enable  them  free  of  work  to  pay  their  wages. 

*MS.  records  of  Union  County. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  99 

We  have  our  eyes  on  one  or  two  slaves  who  hire  their 
own  time,  rent  houses  and  pretend  to  do,  nobody 
knows  what.  It  is  objectionable  and  ought  to  be 
done  away  with." 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  practice  acted  as  a  virtual  sus 
pension  of  all  slave  regulation  and  if  widely  established 
would  have  led  to  great  evils.  Hence  from  1712  there 
were  laws  prohibiting  it.  The  codes  of  1712  and  1740 
prohibited  it  with  small  fines.  An  act  of  1822 1|  made  any 
slave  who  had  been  permitted  to  "hire  out"  his  time 
liable  to  seizure,  confiscation  and  sale  as  in  case  of  a  slave 
illegally  introduced  into  the  state.  The  act  of  1849* 
made  more  intelligent  provision  by  making  the  penalty 
merely  a  fine  of  $50  on  the  owner  of  the  slave  allowed  to 
hire  his  time,  one-half  going  to  the  informer. 

Abundant  evidence  can  be  cited  to  show  that  the  law 
was  almost  totally  disregarded  and  that  apparently  no 
effort  was  made  to  enforce  it.  A  city  ordinance  of  Charles 
ton  of  1800§  (recognizing  apparently  that  the  law  was 
being  constantly  violated)  undertook  to  regulate  the  prac 
tice  by  requiring  every  owner  who  had  slaves  hired  out  on 
their  own  account  to  secure  a  badge  from  the  city  author 
ities  on  payment  of  a  small  fee.  This  was  put  in  more  sys 
tematic  form  in  1846  by  a  provision  that  the  badge  should 
show  in  what  kind  of  work  the  slave  was  engaged  and  date 
(year  issued)*  and  that  it  must  be  worn  by  the  slave  in  a 
conspicuous  place;  failure  by  the  master  to  comply  was 
punishable  with  a  fine  of  two  dollars.  An  editorial  in  the 
Charleston  Mercury  of  December  10,  1859,  says  that  few 
even  of  these  badges  were  worn,  but  that  it  was  understood 
that  the  police  had  been  ordered  to  enforce  the  law.  An 
ordinance  of  the  town  of  Marion  in  1858  was  similar f 
although  it  appears  to  have  been  primarily  a  revenue 
measure.  It  prohibited  any  owner  to  allow  his  slave  "to 

| (Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  462,  sec.  6. 

*Statutes  at  Large,  XI,  563. 

§Printed  Ordinances,    1800.     There  may  h&ve  been  earlier  ones, 

^Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  24,  1846, 

^Marion  Star,  Feb.  2,  1858. 


100  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

follow  any  permanent  employment"  except  after  paying 
a  small  license  fee. 

Of  the  class  of  negroes  to  which  this  custom  gave  rise 
Pollard  says:f 

"You  must  know  that  our  colored  gentry  (many  of 
whom,  as  the  custom  is  here,  make  considerable  money 
by  hiring  their  own  time  and  paying  their  masters 
a  stated  sum  for  the  privilege)  not  only  maintain 
parsons  and  build  churches,  but  hire  carriages  to 
attend  them." 

The  grand  juries  of  Charleston  as  early  as  1734  had  com 
plained  of  the  evils  of  the  practice.* 

The  grand  jury  of  Darlington  in  1849  said:§ 

"We  present  the  practice  of  negroes  hiring  their 
own  time  from  their  owners  and  owning  horses  and 
travelling  in  buggies,  wagons,  etc.,  as  a  nuisance  in 
this  district  calculated  to  produce  a  spirit  of  insub 
ordination  amongst  the  slave  population." 
The  Newberry  grand  jury  in  1859  said:* 

"The  law  in  relation  to  slaves  hiring  their  own  time 

is  not  enforced  with  sufficient  promptness  and  efficiency 

as  to  accomplish  the  object  designed  by  its  enactment." 

No  effort  appears  to  have  been  made  to  enforce  the  law. 

The  available  court  records  of  nine  counties  reveal  only 

two  cases  of  prosecutions  for  this  offense;  one  case  was  in 

Darlington  district  in   1855  in  which  the  document  was 

returned  by  the  grand  jury  "no  bill."     The  other  was  in 

Marlborough  in  the  same  year,  the  bill  bearing  the  following 

returns:     "true  bill,"  "not  arrested,"  "not  guilty." 

Industrial  competition  finally  showed  its  hand.  The 
skilled  free  negro  workmen  were  formidable  enough,  but 
to  these  was  added  this  semi-free  class  of  slaves.  The 
Vesey  plot  of  1822  had  called  attention  to  the  danger  from 
this  growing  class  of  colored  laborers.  In  a  series  of 

fPollard,  E.  A.:  Black  Diamonds,  p.  37,  published  1859. 
*South  Carolina  Gazette,  March  30,  1734. 
IMS.  records  County  Clerk  of  Court's  office,  Darlington. 
.  records  County  Clerk  of  Court's  office,  Newberry. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  10 1 

articles  published  in  the  South  Carolina  State  Gazette  in 
October  and  November  of  that  year,  and  later  printed 
in  pamphlet  form,  said  of  the  skilled  negro  laborer  in  con 
nection  with  the  problem  of  his  control: 

"The  great  fundamental   principle  should  be  that 
the  slave  should  be  kept  as  much  confined  as  possible 
to  agricultural  labors.     These  so  employed  are  found 
to  be  the  most  orderly  and  obedient  of  the  slaves, 
.     .     .     There    should    be    no    black    mechanics    or 
artisans,  at  least  in  the  cities.     These  are  placed,  by 
the  nature  of  their  employments,   much   more  from 
under  the  eye  and  inspection  of  their  masters,  and  they 
acquire  vicious  habits  injurious  to  themselves  as  well 
as  their  owners,  and  of  evil  example  to  other  slaves." 
It  appears  also  that  the  organizations  of  mechanics  had 
in  three  different   memorials  already  petitioned    the  legis 
lature  for  relief  from  competition  with  slaves  who  were 
allowed  to  hire  their  time  and  work  out  as  mechanics. 
These  together  with  a  recent  presentment  of  the  Charles 
ton  grand  jury  and  proposed  bills  to  remedy  the  evils  com 
plained  of  were  referred  to  a  legislative  committee,*  whose 
report  reviewed  the  acts  of  1822  and  1849  on  the  subject 
and  certain  proposed  bills,  expressing  the  opinion  that  the 
latter  cover  the  same  ground  already  covered  by  the  laws 
previously    enacted.     The    committee    found    itself    very 
much  at  loss  for  a  remedy  but  suggested  that  certain  labor 
ers  from  among  the  slaves  be  allowed  to  hire  their  time. 
No  law  came  as  a  result  of  their  suggestions.     Some  of 
their  statements   on  the  subject  are  well  worth  quoting: 
"The  evil  complained  of  is,  that  slaves  are  allowed 
to  go  at  large,  exercise  all  the  privileges  of  free  persons, 
make   contracts,  do   work,  and   every   way   live   and 
conduct  themselves  as  if  they  were  not  slaves.    .     .     . 
The  evil  is,  he  buys  the  control  of  his  own  time  from 
his  owner.     By  the  payment  of  a  stipulated  amount  of 
wages   he   avoids   the   discipline   and   surveillance   of 
his  master  and  is  separated  from  his  observation  and 

*Pamphlet:     Report  of  Colored  Population,   Dec.   7,    1858,  to  the 
Legislature,   Charleston  Library. 


102  'Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

superintendence.  We  agree  fully  with  the  Memorial 
ists  who  complain  of  this  evil — but  the  ground  is  much 
more  general  than  the  one  set  up  in  these  Bills.  The 
evil  lies  in  the  breaking  down  the  relation  between 
master  and  slave — the  removal  of  the  slave  from  the 
master's  discipline  and  control  and  the  assumption 
of  freedom  and  independence  on  the  part  of  the  slave, 
the  idleness,  disorder  and  crime  which  are  consequen 
tial,  and  the  necessity  thereby  created  for  additional 
police  regulations  to  keep  them  in  subjection  and 
order,  and  the  trouble  and  expense  they  involve. 

"Yet  there  is  something  to  be  said  in  relation  to 
carrying  that  relation  into  effect.  We  are  a  slave- 
holding  people  habituated  to  slave  labor  and  domestic 
labor  of  our  state.  We  have  towns  and  villages, 
however,  where  ordinary  labor  is  to  be  performed 
which  can  be  done  either  by  whites  or  negroes.  We 
are  accustomed  to  black  labor  and  it  would  create 
a  revolution  to  drive  it  away.  The  domestic  servants, 
most  of  the  common  laborers  and  porters,  draymen, 
wagoners  and  cartmen  and  on  the  seaboard  stevedores 
are  mostly  negroes;  but  they  are  all  included  in  the 
general  inhibition  of  the  acts  of  1822  and  1849.  It 
would  be  impossible  to  have  this  sort  of  slave  labor, 
if  there  must  be  a  contract  with  the  owner  for  every 
specific  job — as  for  instance  the  transportation  of 
a  load  in  a  wagon  or  dray,  the  carrying  of  a  passenger's 
trunk  to  or  from  a  railroad,  etc.  The  subject  is, 
therefore,  full  of  difficulty  and  until  you  can  change 
the  direction  of  the  public  prejudice,  prepossession 
and  habit  you  can  never  enforce  a  law  that  conflicts 
with  them." 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  103 

CHAPTER    X 
The  Slave  Trade,  Foreign  and  Domestic 

The  foreign  slave  trade  though  not  coming  properly  within 
the  range  of  our  subject  may  be  referred  to  at  this  point.* 
In  1787  an  act  was  passed f  prohibiting  the  trade  entirely, 
both  foreign  and  domestic.  The  acts  were  temporary 
but  were  renewed  from  time  to  time  before  their  expiration 
until  1803.  Provision  was  made,  however,  to  allow  persons 
who  intended  to  become  bona  fide  citizens  to  bring  their 
slaves  into  the  state  with  them,  or  any  slaves  acquired  by  a 
marriage  formed  without  the  state  could  also  be  intro 
duced.  Every  precaution  was  thrown  around  the  act 
and  heavy  penalties  for  its  violation  were  provided.  Not 
withstanding  the  vigilance  of  the  officers  of  the  law,  Gov 
ernor  James  B.  Richardson,  in  his  annual  message  of  1803, 
said  that  the  traffic  had  continued  and  apparently  could 
not  be  stopped.!  The  message  betrays  the  trace  of  a 
desire  that  the  restrictions  be  removed,  and  in  the  same 
year  the  legislature  repealed  all  former  acts  prohibiting 
the  traffic,  while  the  repealing  measure  still  prohibited  the 
importance  of  any  male  slave  over  fifteen  years  of  age 
from  any  sister  state.  The  breaking  of  a  New  Orleans 
levee  would  perhaps  be  the  best  illustration  of  the  inunda 
tion  of  blacks  that  flooded  the  state.  It  was  worse  be 
cause  this  was  the  only  state  which  opened  its  ports  to 
them  at  this  time.  During  the  four  years  that  the  foreign 
trade  was  allowed  until  1808,  when  the  traffic  was  forbidden 

*For  a  list  of  the  colonial  acts  passed  with  a  view  to  restricting  foreign 
importations,  see  Dubois:  Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  p.  9,  and 
for  further  summaries,  see  Appendix  A  and  B  of  the  same  work. 

tStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  430. 

§The  records  of  Marlborough  district  preserve  two  indictments  in 
1802  for  the  bringing  of  slaves  into  the  state.  In  one  of  the  cases 
fifty-two  slaves  were  introduced.  The  indictments  in  both  instances 
were  returned  "no  bill."  These  slaves  were  probably  brought  in  from 
North  Carolina  as  this  was  a  border  district  with  no  port. 


104  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

by  federal  statute,*  39,075  slaves  were  thrown  into  the 
state,  f 

One  of  the  disastrous  effects  of  the  passage  of  the  law, 
though  small  comparatively  if  we  are  to  believe  Ramsay, § 
was  to  cause  more  than  a  hundred  Quakers,  a  thrifty,  law- 
abiding  class  of  citizens,  who  had  religious  scruples  about 
slavery,  to  leave  the  state  for  Ohio,  selling  their  lands  at  a 
sacrifice.  During  the  first  two  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century  about  twelve  hundred  Quakers  left  South  Carolina 
for  the  middle  West  as  the  result  probably  of  the  laws  of 
this  period  favorable  to  the  slavery  interests.  Whole  com 
munities  left  Piney  Grove  in  Marlborough  district  and 
Bush  River  in  Newberry  district. \ 

Efforts  were  made  to  repeal  the  wide-open  policy  of  the 
act  of  1803,  pleas  being  made  by  the  governor  in  1805  and 
again  in  1806  on  every  available  consideration.  One  was 
that  the  state  should  take  action  before  it  was  forced  upon 
her  by  congress,  as  was  likely  to  be  the  case  by  1808.  But 
the  appeals  were  futile.  In  1805  the  lower  house  passed  a 
bill  prohibiting  the  traffic,  but  it  was  lost  on  second  reading 
in  the  senate  by  a  vote  of  15  to  16  because  the  upper  house 
insisted  that  the  interestate  traffic  be  permitted  if  the 
foreign  were  prohibited.il  In  1806  a  similar  bill  passed  the 
house  of  representatives  with  only  two  dissenting  votes** 
but  failed  on  second  reading  in  the  senate  by  a  vote  of 
16  to  16. ft  Perhaps  the  interests  of  the  slave  trade  could 
not  be  overcome  and  the  state  possibly  hoped  to  gain  some 
advantage  from  the  slaves  entering  at  Charleston  and 
Georgetown  with  a  view  to  being  then  sent  west. 

*U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  426. 

fSpeech  of  Senator  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  Dec.  8,  1820.  Annals  of  Congress,  16th  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  p.  77. 
See  also  Collins:  Domestic  Slave  Trade  of  the  Southern  States,  pp. 
11  and  39. 

IQuoted  by  Weeks:     Southern  Quakers  and  Slavery,  p.  266. 

JSchaper:  Sectionalism  in  South  Carolina,  p.  393;  Weeks:  South 
ern  Quakers  and  Slavery,  pp.  269-270. 

\\Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  9,  10,  18,  1805. 

**Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  17,  1806. 

ft Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  24,  1806. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  105 

The  agitation  for  the  reopening  of  the  slave  trade  in  the 
fifties  may  be  passed  over  briefly.  Dubois*  finds  the  de 
sire  for  cheap  labor  at  the  bottom  of  this  agitation,  and  this 
certainly  must  have  been  a  contributing  cause.  But  the 
general  controversy  over  the  slavery  question  must  have 
had  another  reason,  which  begot  a  sort  of  dare-devil 
spirit  on  the  part  of  Southern  blood  to  show  its  confidence 
in  the  righteousness  of  their  cause,  to  overcome  any  doubts 
that  were  arising  in  their  minds.  The  majority  of  Southern 
sentiment  would  not,  it  can  be  safely  said,  have  tolerated 
the  suggestion  but  for  the  offset  it  afforded  abolitionism. 
The  fuse  was  fired  by  the  capture  of  the  Echo,  an  African 
slave  vessel,  near  Charleston  harbor  in  August,  1858,  with 
three  hundred  and  six  slaves  aboard — afterwards  reshipped 
to  Africa  by  the  Colonization  Society,  f  The  legislature 
in  1857  appointed  a  committee  to  investigate  the  desirability 
of  reopening  the  foreign  trade,  referring  to  it  the  recommend 
ation  of  the  governor  to  that  effect.  The  majority  of  the 
committee — all  but  one — reported  favorably  to  the  project.! 

This  leads  up  to  the  question  of  the  interstate  traffic, 
which  has  a  closer  bearing  on  the  question  of  police  control. 
It  is  true  that  had  there  been  a  continued  influx  of  the 
foreign  element  it  would  have  to  be  studied  more  fully  in 
its  bearing  on  the  conduct  of  the  negroes  already  present 
within  the  state  but  as  it  soon  ceased  we  turned  to  the 
domestic  trade.  The  argument  offered  for  prohibiting  the 
introduction  of  slaves  from  other  states  was  to  prevent 
the  speculator  from  loading  up  the  community  with  un 
desirable  slaves.  As  was  the  case  in  the  latter  half  century- 
of  the  existence  of  American  slavery  the  slave  was  much 
more  valuable  on  the  rice  and  cotton  plantation  of  Caro 
lina  than  he  was  in  Virginia.  There  would  be  a  tendency 
then  in  the  absence  of  any  restrictions  for  the  state  to  in- 

*Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  p.  168. 

fAnnual  Message  of  Governor  Alston,  1858.  Dubois  gives  the  fol 
lowing  reference  on  the  case:  U.  S.  Executive  Documents,  35th  Congress, 
2nd  Session,  pt.  2,  No.  2,  pt.  4,  pp.  5,  14. 

§Dubois,  Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  p.  176;  Pamphlet:  Ma 
jority  and  Minority  Reports,  in  Charleston  Library. 


106  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

crease  its  slave  population  in  a  way  second  only  in  evil 
to  that  of  foreign  importation. 

But  a  more  important  reason  is  that  referred  to,  that  the 
professional  speculators  who  would  have  the  opportunity 
to  go  through  the  state  buying  up  cheaply  the  unruly, 
dangerous,  lazy  slaves  and  to  unload  them  at  a  good  price 
in  another.  Here  was  a  Pandora's  box  of  trouble  for  the 
community,  and  a  source  of  dread  for  the  state.  The 
grand  jury  of  Spartanburg  district,  bordering  on  the  state 
of  North  Carolina,  had  the  following  to  say  of  the  inter 
state  traffic  in  the  fall  of  1816:* 

"We  present  as  a  serious  and  most  lamentable 
grievance  the  bringing  in  of  slaves  from  other  parts  of 
the  Union:  the  practice  is  an  imposition  on  our  citizens 
and  dangerous  to  the  safety  of  the  State;  we  do  trust 
that  our  Legislature  will,  without  delay,  take  the 
case  under  their  consideration." 

It  is  stated  in  its  worst  light  in  the  message  of  Governor 

D.  R.  Williams  in  1816.     He  said  in  part: 

"It  is  not  possible  that  your  deliberations  on  these 
subjects  can  be  concluded  before  that  remorseless, 
merciless  traffic,  which  brings  among  us  slaves  of  all 
descriptions  from  other  states,  which  is  a  reproach  to 
our  morals  and  an  outrage  to  our  feelings,  shall  press 
on  you  for  correction.  It  is  time  the  course  of  cease 
less  cupidity,  alike  regardless  of  country  and  conse 
quences,  should  be  arrested,  high  time  that  our  streets 
and  highways  should  be  freed  from  the  crowds  of 
suffering  victims  that  are  constantly  dragged  through 
them  to  minister  to  insatiable  avarice.  The  lights 
of  humanity,  a  wise  policy,  the  prayers  of  the  just, 
all  require  that  the  delightful  avocations  of  domestic 
life  should  be  no  longer  denied  by  the  presence  of 
convicts  and  malefactors." 
The  act  of  1816f,  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  slaves 

from  sister  states  for  sale,  was  very  drastic  in  its  provisions. 

It  provided  that  slaves  unlawfully  introduced  might  be 

*MS.  records  of  Spartanburg  county. 
fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  451. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  107 

seized  and  sold,  one-half  the  proceeds  going  to  the  informer; 
the  trader  was  to  be  fined  $50  for  each  slave  sold  and  for  a 
second  series  of  offenses  to  be  declared  guilty  of  a  felony; 
any  person  buying  such  slaves  knowing  them  to  be  illegally 
introduced  into  the  state  was  to  be  fined  $400;  the  tax 
collector  was  authorized  to  require  every  slaveowner  to 
make  oath  that  he  had  not  purchased  any  slave  contrary 
to  the  law.  But  the  law  was  not  observed.  The  difficulty 
lay  in  the  method  of  its  enforcement.  Governor  Pickens, 
in  his  message  of  1818,  said: 

"It  is  believed  that  this  law,  which  is  thought  so 
repugnant  to  the  interests  of  many  of  our  fellow  citi 
zens,  is  violated  in  many  instances  with  impunity; 
as  no  one  will  incur  the  odium  attached  to  the  character 
of  an  informer." 

Another  difficulty  was  the  exceptions  that  many  desired 
to  have  made  to  the  law  by  special  act  to  permit  the  im 
portation  of  certain  slaves.  The  legislative  news  letter  to 
the  (Charleston)  City  Gazette,  printed  on  December  4, 
1817,  has  this  utterance  as  to  the  number  of  petitions: 

"The  number  already  petitioned  for  amount  to 
735  and  God  knows  how  many  more  will  be  presented 
before  the  end  of  the  session." 

In  view  of  the  frequent  violations  of  the  law  Governor 
Pickens  submitted  to  the  wisdom  of  the  legislators  in  his 
message  of  1818  the  question  whether  or  not  the  act  of 
1816  should  be  repealed.  The  act  rescinding  the  former 
law  was  passed.  The  private  correspondence  to  the 
Charleston  Courier  of  Dec.  12,  1818,  describes  the  debate 
in  the  lower  house  as  "one  of  the  most  eloquent  and  ani 
mated  that  has  taken  place  on  that  floor  for  many  years." 
The  seamen  act  of  1835  has  two  sections  limiting  the 
bringing  in  of  slaves  as  servants  from  the  outside,  if  they 
had  been  north  of  the  Potomac  or  in  the  West  Indies  or 
other  points  to  the  south  of  Carolina.  This  act  was 
amended  in  1847*  so  as  to  permit  slaves  to  be  introduced 
from  Cuba.  With  these  exceptions  it  seems  that  after 

*Statutesat  Large,  XI,  449.  Collins:  Domestic  Slave  Trade  of  the 
Southern  States,  p.  115. 


108  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

1818  the  bars  were  let  down  to  permit  unrestricted  trade. 
Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  South  Carolina  assumed  for  the 
benefit  of  the  large  planters  the  responsibility  for  making 
the  state  an  open  market  for  the  surplus  slaves  of  other 
states. 


CHAPTER    XI 

Stealing  and  Harboring  of  Slaves  and 
Kidnapping  of  Free  Negroes 

The  recognition  of  the  interests  of  the  slaveholder  cannot 
be  better  illustrated  than  by  the  rigorous  enforcement  of 
the  severe  penalty  for  stealing  and  carrying  away  slaves, 
often  called  "inveigling,"  which  deprived  the  master  of 
his  property.  It  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  heinous 
crimes  that  could  be  committed,  even  worse  apparently 
than  the  murder  of  a  slave. 

But  neither  the  interest  of  the  master  nor  the  desire  to 
protect  the  comfort  of  the  slave  was  the  only  reason  why 
the  penalty  was  severe  and  the  law  rigorously  enforced. 
Slave-stealing  was  dangerous  in  that  it  threatened  the  en 
tire  stability  of  the  whole  system  and  was  subversive  of 
the  interests  of  society.  The  slave-stealer  was  the  anar 
chist  of  Southern  serfdom.  Suppose  it  had  been  allowed 
to  become  a  common  offense :  property  in  slaves  would  have 
been  insecure ;  other  property  would  have  been  endangered 
by  the  lawlessness  of  the  depredators;  lives  of  the  whites 
would  not  have  been  secure,  for  it  would  have  encouraged 
and  made  possible  insurrection  and  general  disorder  which 
was  the  nightmare  of  the  Southern  white;  the  slave  thief 
would  have  been  in  position,  with  the  assistance  of  his 
captives,  to  carry  out  his  plans  of  the  highwayman  with 
organized  method. 

Add  to  this  the  ineffectiveness  of  any  penalty  short  of 
execution  and  it  will  be  clear  how  capital  punishment  came 
to  be  regarded  as  the  proper  one.  A  fine  could  have  been 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  109 

recouped  by  another  steal  or  two  when  a  "likely"  negro 
was  worth  $1,000,  even  if  we  suppose  that  he  parted  with 
his  stolen  property  at  half  price.  A  prison  sentence  which 
sometimes  may  have  been  imposed  in  lieu  of  the  death 
penalty  frequently  ended  in  an  escape,  owing  to  the  des 
perate  character  of  the  thieves  and  also  to  the  fact  that 
several  of  them  often  acted  together  and  gave  each  other 
assistance  to  escape.  However,  it  was  not  until  1754f 
that  slave  stealing  had  become  sufficiently  prevalent  to 
demand  enactment  of  the  highest  penalty. 

But  the  danger  becomes  more  formidable  when,  as  it 
appears  there  were,  though  rarely  perhaps,  organized  bands 
of  outlaws,  who  like  highway  robbers  of  earlier  days,  made 
this  their  means  of  earning  a  livelihood.  The  most 
notorious  of  these  bands  was  one  which  was  led  by  Murrel 
in  the  thirties  and  early  forties  and  was  brought  to  bay 
by  the  Tennessee  authorities.*  A  news  item  in  the  Charles 
ton  Courier  of  September  9,  1846,§  mentions  the  capture 
of  a  young  white  man  at  Cheraw  who  was  suspected  by 
his  display  of  money  of  having  assisted  in  the  escape  of 
four  negroes  from  the  community.  When  arrested  he 
implicated  another  white  man  and  a  negro,  the  latter  of 
whom  was  caught  at  Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  and  duly 
executed.  The  white  man  was  thought  to  be  one  of  the 
original  Murrel  gang.  The  method  used,  as  appears  from 
the  more  or  less  embellished  story  of  Murrel  in  the  dis 
closure  to  Stewart,  was  to  approach  a  slave  while  at  work; 
the  slave,  who  perhaps  betrayed  a  longing  desire  for  some 
kind  of  change,  was  asked  how  he  liked  his  master;  if  he 
showed  an  ill  feeling  toward  his  master  he  was  invited  to 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  426,  sec.  1. 

*It  is  probable  that  Murrel  had  confederates  who  operated  or  made 
attempts  in  upper  Carolina  as  will  appear  from  the  further  narrative. 
A  full  and  romantic  account  of  the  adventure  of  Murrel  and  of  Stewart, 
who  was  the  means  of  his  final  capture,  occurs  in  the  Southern  Times  and 
State  Gazette  of  September  and  October,  1835. 

§See  also  records  of  Marlborough  County  for  the  cases  against 
Weatherly  and  of  his  accomplices  being  brought  from  Sumter  to  testify 
against  him.  More  than  one  unsuccessful  effort  to  convict  him  was 
made. 


110  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

escape  usually  at  night  on  a  signal  to  a  given  rendezvous.* 
The  slave's  co-operation  was  secured  by  imposing  upon 
his  credulity  with  the  story  that  he  was  being  transported 
by  a  friend  to  a  free  state  or  at  least  that  he  would  be  placed 
in  more  favorable  surroundings  than  he  enjoyed  at  present. 
The  negro,  often  easily  deceived,  did  as  was  directed. 
After  a  sufficient  distance  had  been  reached — Arkansas 
was  a  favorite  place  for  the  Murrel  gang — the  slave  was 
sold.  The  new  master  was  likely  to  be  no  improvement 
over  the  former  and  the  thief,  who  appeared  to  be  a  sort 
of  savior  in  need  to  the  now  adventurous  black,  turned  up 
again  and,  with  the  negro's  assistance,  the  stolen  black  is 
whisked  away  to  another  distance  and  resold. 

These  highwaymen  were  shifty  enough  to  understand 
that  an  advertisement  for  a  runaway  slave  gave  to  any 
white  person  the  right  to  arrest  and  return  such  slave  to 
his  master  or  overseer  as  a  captured  runaway.  Naturally 
the  master  or  overseer,  when  he  found  that  the  slave  was 
gone,  advertised  for  him  thinking  most  likely  he  had  run 
away,  as  this  was  more  or  less  common.  Hence  on  being 
caught  the  thief  could  plead  that  it  was  in  an  effort  to 
return  the  runaway  that  he  was  found  in  the  slave's  com 
pany.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  slave  was  not  com 
petent  to  give  evidence  as  to  what  had  happened.  Even 
if  he  "talked"  it  could  be  used  only  as  a  clue;  it  is  hardly 
probable  that  the  slave,  who  was  conscious  of  the  effect 
upon  the  master  of  his  own  co-operation  to  cheat  the 
master  out  of  his  services,  could  or  would  give  a  coherent 
account  of  what  had  passed  since  he  was  aware  that  it  was 
not  likely  to  better  his  case  if  a  sound  whipping  was  in 
store  for  him. 

We  may  here  inquire  as  to  the  frequency  of  the  crime  of 
slave  stealing  and  its  punishment.  The  Charleston  Courier 
of  June  2,  1809,  in  a  news  item  tells  of  the  pardon  of  two 
persons  convicted  of  slave  stealing.  Governor  Drayton, 
in  his  annual  message  to  the  general  assembly  in  November 
of  the  same  year,  mentioned  the  fact  that  there  had  been  five 

*See  also  article  by  Phillips  in  The  South  in  the  Building  of  the 
Nation,  vol.  IV,  p.  230. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  111 

convictions  with  the  death  penalty  in  each  case  for  this 
crime  during  the  year  then  coming  to  a  close  and  that  one 
prisoner  was  awaiting  trial  in  Charleston  at  the  time. 
He  defended  his  record  for  pardons  of  slave  stealers  by 
referring  to  popular  sentiment,  a  considerable  part  of  which 
was  against  so  severe  a  penalty.*  He  then  proceeded  to 
shift  the  responsibility  for  the  criticism  of  the  severity 
of  the  penalty  upon  the  legislature  by  saying  that  it  they 
did  not  see  fit  to  change  the  law  he  desired  to  serve  notice 
that  there  would  hereafter  be  no  executive  interference 
with  sentences  of  death  imposed  by  the  courts  for  this 
offense.  No  change  was  made  in  the  penalty  by  law. 
Accordingly,  in  a  proclamation  of  a  reward  of  $200  by 
the  governor  in  the  following  March  for  an  overseer  who 
had  left  a  farm  on  the  Waccamaw^carrying  some  slaves 
with  him,  he  added  :f 

"And   I   do  hereby  earnestly  require  and  strictly 
enjoin  all   officers  of   this  state,   civil  and   military, 
and  all  authorities  of  the  same  to  be  vigilant  in  arrest 
ing^  trying  and  bringing  to  justice  and  to  due  and 
lawful   punishment   all   persons   charged    with    negro 
stealing;   which    has   of   late   increased   to   a   degree, 
requiring  such  punishment  as  the  laws  of  the  state 
authorize;  and  which  shall  in  proper  cases  be  carried 
into  full  effect,  so  far  as  depends  upon  the  authorities 
and  powers  with  which  I  am  invested." 
That  the  authorities  were  in  earnest  and  that  this  policy 
of  carrying  the  law  into  effect  was  continued  appears  from 
two  instances. S  In  a  news  item  in  The  Times  (Charleston) 
of  February   25,   1813,  is  the  notice  of  an  execution  at 
Barnwell  for  "horse  and  negro  stealing;"  the  item  reads: 

The  following  verdict  returned  by  the  jury  in  the  trial  of  a  slave 
stealer  in  Spartanburg  in  1808  would  seem  to  bear  out  his  statement 
that  there  was  a  general  feeling  that  the  penalty  was  unduly  harsh. 
"We  find  the^defendant  guilty,  but  from  principles  of  humanity^  we 
recommend  him  to  mercy."  The  defendant  was  sentenced  to  be 
hanged  notwithstanding  the  verdict.  MS.  records  Spartanburg 
County. 

tThe  Carolina  Gazette,  March  9,  1810. 


112  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

"He  was  strongly  guarded  by  the  militia,  both  foot 
and  horse,  as  it  was  rumored  a  rescue  would  be  at 
tempted,  the  sentence  by  many,  being  thought  too 
severe — executive  clemency  having  been  strenuously 
withheld  notwithstanding  repeated  strong  applica 
tions  in  his  favor." 

The  other  instance  is  the  resolution  of  the  Charleston 
City  Council  of  June  17,  1816,*  providing  for  the  purchase 
of  space  in  the  Charleston  Courier  for  a  month's  publication 
in  each  issue  of  the  act  to  prevent  slave  stealing.  This 
was  done  apparently  with  a  view  to  prevent  anybody's 
acting  through  ignorance  of  the  serious  consequences. 

Instances  of  executions  for  slave  stealing  could  be  mul 
tiplied.  Chapman,  in  the  Annals  of  Newberry,f  makes 
mention  of  the  escape  from  the  Newberry  jail  of  a  white 
man  charged  with  negro  stealing,  his  capture,  trial,  con 
viction  and  commutation  of  the  death  sentence  after  he 
had  been  taken  to  the  scaffold.  Or,  of  another  at  Darling 
ton  in  1846  who  paid  the  penalty.  But  one  of  the  most 
notorious  cases  occurred  in  Sumter  district,  where  three 
slaves  were  stolen  from  Willie  Spain.  The  thief  was 
caught  and  a  true  bill  was  found  against  him  at  the  April 
term  of  court  in  1838.  After  an  unsuccessful  effort  to 
escape  he  finally  succeeded  in  "breaking  jail"  on  July 
30,  1838.  An  unusually  long  "presentment"  of  the  sheriff 
by  the  grand  jury  followed  at  the  next  term  of  court  with 
a  very  vigorous  criticism  of  that  officer  on  account  of  the 
escape.  The  sheriff  was  ordered  to  "show  cause"  for  non- 
performance  of  duty,  which  he  did  presumably  with  satis 
faction  for  no  fine  or  other  penalty  was  imposed  on  the  sheriff 
in  so  far  as  the  records  show.  The  criminal  was  not 
finally  arraigned  until  1844  when  he  was  convicted  and 
sentenced  to  be  hanged.  All  of  the  papers  in  the  clerk 
of  court's  office  in  the  case  are  preserved,  and  it  is  probable 
that  due  care  was  observed  for  the  safekeeping  of  the  pris 
oner,  who  it  may  be  inferred  was  at  last  executed  since 
nothing  to  the  contrary  appears. 

Charleston  Courier,  June  24,  1816. 
fPage  500. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  113 

An  interesting  case  of  slave  stealing  which  affected  South 
Carolina  occurred  in  Virginia  in  1839.  It  serves  to  show 
the  attitude  of  the  South  toward  the  North  when  some 
times  slaves  were  assisted  to  escape  or  stolen  outright. 
Three  negro  sailors*  aided  a  slave  to  escape  to  New  York. 
Requisition  for  the  return  of  the  offenders  who  were  re 
garded  as  fugitives  from  justice  was  made  upon  the  gov 
ernor  of  New  York,  by  the  Governor  of  Virginia.  The 
requisition  was  dishonored,  though  the  escaped  slave  was 
recovered,!  on  the  ground  that  slave  stealing  as  a  crime 
had  no  legal  existence  in  the  state  of  New  York.  This 
sounded  the  alarm  to  the  South.  South  Carolina  passed 
a  rigid  inspection  act  in  1841  §  against  all  vessels  clearing 
for  New  York — the  inspector's  fee  being  $10  to  be  collected 
from  the  ship  owner — to  make  sure  that  no  slaves  were 
being  concealed  on  board  and  were  being  carried  away. 
The  captain  of  such  vessel  was  also  to  enter  into  bond  of 
$1,000  to  guarantee  the  pay  for  the  loss  of  any  slave  he 
might  be  carrying  away  clandestinely;  he  was  also  required 
to  take  oath  to  the  same  effect.  The  governor  was  given 
the  power  to  suspend  the  operation  of  this  act  discrimi 
nating  against  New  York  provided  he  were  officially  in 
formed  that  the  requisition  of  the  governor  of  Virginia 
for  the  return  of  the  fugitives  had  been  complied  with. 
Meantime  the  New  York  legislature  had  passed  another 
still  more  stringent  actj  to  prevent  the  return  of  runaways, 
providing  a  fine  of  $500  under  the  charge  of  kidnapping 
to  carry  away  any  former  slave  from  the  state  without  a 
hearing.  To  secure  a  hearing  the  person  must  enter  into 
a  bond  of  $1,000  given  by  a  citizen  of  the  state  of  New  York 
to  secure  the  costs.  In  1842  the  South  Carolina  legis- 

*Ballagh:  History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  extra  volume  XXIV, 
J.  H.  U.  Studies,  p.  76.  Professor  Ballagh  says  "two"  slaves  but  the 
Act  of  1841,  Statutes  at  Large,  XI,  166,  sec.  12,  refers  to  "three." 

fSchouler:  History  of  the  United  States,  IV,  342;  McMaster, 
History  of  the  People  of  U.  S.,  VII,  249. 

§Statutes  at  Large,  XI,  163. 

{Report  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of  the  South  Caro 
Una  Legislature,  printed  in  The  Southern  Chronicle,  Dec.  8,  1841, 


114  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

lature  passed  an  act  supplementary  to  the  one  of  1841.J 
It  seems,  however,  that  South  Carolina  had  to  suffer  from 
its  own  policy,  for  the  inspection  which  appears  to  have 
been  well  enforced  worked  a  hardship  on  trade  within  the 
state.  Merchants  of  Charleston  and  Georgetown  com 
plained  of  the  hindrance  to  business  which  it  caused. 
But  the  only  action  taken  on  their  petitions  to  the  legis 
lature  was  to  refer  them  to  a  committee.  *  The  committee's 
report  shows  that  the  fees  annually  collected  until  1847 
amounted  to  $1,500,  but  for  the  first  eleven  months  of 
1847  they  had  run  up  to  $1,890.§ 

Closely  akin  to  the  stealing  of  slaves  was  the  "harboring" 
of  slaves.  The  presumption  in  harboring  seems  to  have 
been  that  it  was  an  effort  to  deprive  the  master  temporarily 
of  the  services  of  his  slave.  Then  harboring  was  somewhat 
like  assisting  him  to  runaway  or  becoming  an  accessory 
before  the  fact  of  slave  stealing.  In  some  instances  the 
motive  may  have  been  to  aid  a  slave  who  was  thought  to 
have  been  abused  by  his  master.  Harboring  under  the 
act  of  1821*  was  punishable  with  a  maximum  fine  of  $1,000 
and  imprisonment  at  the  discretion  of  the  court;  or  the 
person  injured  could  bring  a  civil  action  for  damages. 

The  Sumter  county  records  show  three  convictions  in 
1827  for  harboring,  one  person  so  charged  being  sentenced 
to  four  months'  imprisonment  and  the  other  two  to  a  fine 
of  $1,000  and  one  year's  imprisonment  each.  Five  other 
persons  similarly  charged  whose  names  appear  on  the  re 
cords  are  found  "not  guilty,"  "no  bill,"  or  were  discharged. 
The  available  Darlington  criminal  records  show  nine 
indictments  for  harboring,  some  of  which  reach  the  "true 
bill"  stage,  but  only  one  is  recorded  as  having  been  con 
victed  and  in  this  case  no  penalty  is  attached.  The 

fStatutes  at  Large,  XI,  237. 

*The  Daily  Telegraph,  Dec.  15,  1847. 

§Calhoun  presented  a  memorial  in  the  United  States  Senate  from  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  South  Carolina  Legislature  and 
made  a  few  remarks  with  reference  to  the  affair  on  February  7,  1842. 
Niles  Register,  LXI,  372. 

^Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  460. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  115 

Williamsburg  county  records  show  only  one  such  case, 
and  the  defendant  was  acquitted.  The  Newberry  county 
"index"  shows  four  such  bills  entered,  two  of  which  were 
returned  after  trial  "guilty."  The  other  two  were  re 
turned  "no  bill"  by  the  grand  jury.  Kershaw  district 
has  only  one  recorded  instance  and  the  person  charged  is 
found  guilty  but  no  sentence  appears.  Marlborough 
district  has  only  two  recorded  cases,  one  of  which  was 
nolle  pressed  and  the  other  was  returned  "no  bill."  Two 
cases  only  were  brought  in  Laurens  and  both  were  "struck 
off."  Union  district  had  six  cases  of  harboring,  in  only 
two  of  which  convictions  were  secured,  though  no  sentence 
appears.  In  Greenville  district  six  cases  are  on  record, 
in  only  two  of  which  convictions  are  reached.  One  case 
was  against  a  white  man  and  woman,  the  sentence  being 
a  fine  of  $5  and  one  month's  imprisonment.  In  another 
the  penalty  was  $200  and  six  months'  imprisonment. 
Spartanburg  also  records  an  even  six  cases,  in  only  one  of 
which  conviction  was  reached,  the  sentence  being  one 
month's  imprisonment. 

It  sometimes  happened  also  that  free  negroes  fell  into 
the  hands  of  these  robbers  and  were  carried  some  distance 
and  sold  as  slaves.  Whatever  other  disadvantages  free 
negroes  labored  under,  the  community  would  look  upon 
this  as  a  most  pernicious  evil  although  the  self  interest  of 
the  slaveowner  was  not  present  to  protect  him.  Most 
of  the  slave  laws  were  based  primarily  upon  the  pecuniary 
interest  of  the  slaveowner.  Apparently  there  was  no  law 
against  the  abduction  of  free  negroes  until  1837. f  The 
law  passed  in  that  year  provided  for  a  fine  of  SI, 000  and 
twelve  months'  imprisonment  as  a  minimum  penalty  for 
any  person  assisting  in  such  an  abduction;  if  the  theft 
succeeded  the  offender  was  to  receive  an  additional  punish 
ment  of  thirty-nine  lashes.  The  penalty  was  light  in  com 
parison  with  that  for  stealing  a  slave — as  no  white  person's 
property  interest  was  at  stake.  Per  se  stealing  a  free 
negro  child,  by  which  act  it  was  deprived  of  freedom  and 
reduced  to  slavery,  would  seem  far  more  reprehensible 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VI,  574. 


116  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

than  carrying  off  a  slave,  by  which  the  latter  was  merely 
transferred  from  one  owner  to  another  even  though  the 
new  master  was  not  so  humane  as  the  former. 

Collins,  in  his  monograph  on  the  Domestic  Slave 
Trade,!  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  this  kidnapping  of  free 
negroes,  especially  children,  was  frequent.  The  lateness 
of  acts  which  prohibited  it  appearing  on  the  statute  books 
cannot  be  taken  as  evidence  that  the  cases  were  rare. 
For  the  moral  sense  of  the  community  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  especially  acute  on  this  subject,  as  we  shall 
see  later  that  there  was  a  serious  agitation  that  all  free 
negroes  should  be  enslaved.  Still  it  is  true  that  unless  the 
free  negro's  guardian  or  some  white  person  interested 
himself  in  the  case,  the  colored  freeman  was  left  legally 
and  practically  without  protection.  Just  how  frequently 
such  kidnappings  occurred  it  would  be  difficult  to  say. 
The  court  records  of  course  cannot  be  taken  as  a  final 
estimate  for  in  the  records  of  the  county  clerk  of  court's 
offices  examined  by  the  writer  only  one  such  case  occurs, 
namely,  in  Darlington  district  in  1846 — and  it  was  "struck 
off."  As  evidence  that  kidnapping  had  been  common 
before  the  law  of  1837  was  passed  may  be  mentioned  the 
following  scheme  of  unscrupulous  persons  for  reducing 
to  slavery  and  selling  free  negroes  which  is  referred  to  by 
the  grand  jury  of  Charleston  in  1816*: 

"We  present  as  a  grievance  the  show  of  lawful 
proceedings,    which    has    been    fictitiously    given    by 
some  persons  to  the  horrible  practice  of  inducing  free 
negroes  in  jail  or  in  debt  to  bind  themselves  for  a  trifl 
ing  sum  for  several  years,  and  by  a  transfer  in  the  in 
denture  and  a  chain  of  inhuman  proceedings  cause  them 
to  be  sold  into  the  interior  or  out  of  the  state,  by 
which  means  they  may  be  deprived  of  their  freedom." 
In  the  Columbia  Free  Press  and  Hive  of  April  9,  1831, 
the  case  of  such  kidnapping  of  a  free  negro  child  is  men 
tioned  in  a  news  item,  and  inquiry  for  information  as  to  it 
is  made  though  the  theft  occurred  across  the  line  in  North 

fChapter  V. 

*Quoted  by  Mr.  Jervey,  "Hayne  and  His  Times,"  p.  68. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  117 

Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill.  Another  instance  is  mentioned 
in  the  Reports  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  184 If  of  a  free 
negro  who  had  been  brought  from  Florida  and  confined 
in  the  work-house  at  Charleston  for  sale.  He  communi 
cated  the  facts  of  his  freedom  and  the  name  and  address 
of  his  guardian  to  the  warden,  who  became  sufficiently 
interested  to  investigate  and  found  the  statement  true. 
The  captor  doubtless  meantime  having  had  his  suspicions 
aroused,  had  decided  that  the  atmosphere  of  that  com 
munity  was  unwholesome. 


CHAPTER    XII 
Runaway  Slaves 

If  one  glances  through  a  Southern  newspaper  published 
before  1860  the  first  thing  that  the  eye  is  likely  to  fall 
upon  will  be  an  advertisement  of  some  ten  lines  or  more 
at  the  left-hand  corner  of  which  there  is  a  rude  cut  of  a 
negro  in  flight,  carrying  in  one  hand  or  thrown  over  his 
back  on  a  stick  a  bag  representing  food  for  a  few  days. 
At  the  top  of  the  notice  in  bold  face  type  are  the  words: 
$10  reward;  sometimes  $50  or  even  $100.  The  following 
is  a  good  specimen  taken  at  random  from  the  Southern 
Times  and  State  Gazette  of  July  10,  1835: 

"TEN  DOLLARS  REWARD 
1  'Will  be  paid  for  the  apprehension  and  confinement 
in  any  jail  in  this  state  of  a  negro  man,  named  Dublin, 
who  absconded  from  the  plantation  of  Dr.  -  — , 

in  Lexington  district  on  the  30th  of  June. 

"Said  Dublin  is  about  forty-five  years  of  age,  five 
feet  four  inches  high,  spare  made,  with  his  under 
jaw  apparently  too  long  for  the  upper  one.  He 
has  a  very  dark  complexion  and  speaks  somewhat 
broken  as  he  is  an  African  by  birth." 

tl  McMullan  (Law),  135:  Wesne  vs.  Giradeau. 


Il8  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

The  number  of  notices  appearing  in  any  issue  varies  from 
only  two  or  three  to  a  score.  The  early  Charleston  papers 
of  the  eighteenth  century  often  have  column  after  column 
of  them,  showing  that  escapes  wrere  common  in  the  earlier 
times;  while  the  Abbeville  papers  of  the  forties  and  fifties 
have  almost  none. 

Among  these  notices  of  runaways  are  other  advertise 
ments  of  captures,  though  they  are  fewer,  for  often  when 
captured  if  the  owner  were  known  the  slave  was  returned 
directly.  Some  enterprising  newspapers  used  a  small  cut 
representing  a  negro  humbled  by  capture  with  his  hands 
clasped  almost  between  his  knees  and  the  hand  of  a  burly 
white  man  resting  on  his  shoulder.  This  cut  was  to  distin 
guish  the  notice  of  a  capture  from  that  of  a  runaway. 
The  following  from  the  Camden  Journal  of  January  6, 
1827,  is  typical: 

"COMMITTED 

"To  Lancaster  jail  a  negro  man  who  calls  his  name 
Jack,  of  a  dark  complexion,  about  five  feet  eight  or 
ten  inches  high  (marked  with  the  whip  upon  his  back), 
about  fifty  years  of  age:  says  that  he  belongs  to  Capt. 
— ,  of  Oglethorpe  county,  Georgia.  The  owner 
is  requested  to  prove  property,  pay  charges  and  take 
him  away. 

--S.  L.  D." 

A  whipping  for  laziness  or  misconduct,  or  merely  the 
fear  of  a  whipping,  was  often  sufficient  to  cause  a  slave 
"to  take  to  the  woods."  The  master's  treatment  and  the 
slave's  temperament  were  the  factors  determining  the 
possibility  and  frequency  of  a  slave's  running  away.  Slaves 
were,  it  is  quite  true,  sometimes  persuaded  by  unscrupulous 
whites  or  free  negroes  or  other  runaways  "to  run."  But 
when  the  conditions  by  which  the  slaves  were  surrounded 
were  good  and  the  plantation  discipline  firm  though  humane, 
and  the  slave  not  of  a  roving  disposition,  outside  influences 
were  rarely  effective.  There  were  others  of  a  nervous 
or  a  dare-devil  disposition  who  on  slightest  provocation 
prayed  "Lord,  foot  help  body,"§  and  were  not  seen  any  more 

§Pollard:     Black  Diamonds,  p.  105. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  119 

for  days  or  months,  and  sometimes  never  again.  A  master 
who  was  weakly  lenient — there  were  few — was,  so  to 
speak,  held  up  by  a  threat  implied  in  the  slave's  demeanor 
that  he  would  run  away.  These  chronic  runaways  were 
often  "sold  running"  or  "sold  in  the  woods,"  which  means 
that  while  the  negro  was  away  on  an  escapade  the  master 
transferred  his  title  to  the  slave  to  another  at  a  very  much 
reduced  price,  the  purchaser  taking  the  chances  of  recover 
ing  the  fugitive.  A  slaveowner  gave  notice  in  the 
South  Carolina  Gazette  of  June  28,  1835,  that  some  of  his 
negroes  "are  constantly  running  away"  and  offered  a 
standing  reward  for  the  capture  and  return  of  these  at 
any  time. 

One  may  ask  what  the  purpose  of  the  slave  was  in  running 
away;  did  he  have  any  objective  point  to  reach,  or  was  it 
merely  an  aimless  temporary  escape?  It  was  often  both. 
Sometimes  he  would  leave  home  temporarily  for  only  a 
few  days,  and  soon  hunger,  exposure  and  loneliness  would 
drive  him  back  to  the  master's  quarters.  A  whipping 
often  awaited  him,  but  if  he  returned  of  his  own  accord 
and  it  was  not  the  repetition  of  a  similar  former  offense, 
in  order  to  encourage  his  further  faithfulness,  a  wise  master 
dealt  leniently  with  him.  If  he  was  captured  and  returned 
he  usually  received  a  severe  whipping.* 

The  mention  of  the  captor  calls  for  some  account  of  the 
laws  dealing  with  runaways.  The  provisions  of  the  law 
of  1712  on  the  subject  reveals  the  most  striking  stupidity 
perhaps  to  be  found  in  slave  legislation.  Graded  tortures 
for  the  runaway  varying  in  severity  from  slitting  the  nose 
to  cutting  off  one  foot  were  provided  for  a  first,  a  second 
and  further  repetition  of  the  offense.  It  was  made  the 
duty  of  the  master  by  law  to  inflict  such  punishments. 
But  there  is  but  little  reason  for  believing  that  any  such 
except  the  milder  were  ever  inflicted  as  punishments; 
for  if  such  mutilation  did  not  positively  injure  the  slave 
so  as  to  make  him  less  useful  as  a  servant,  it  would  at  least 
become  a  sign  of  his  running  proclivities  in  case  he  was  ever 
offered  for  sale.  These  mutilations,  though  abolished  or 

*See  letter  of  Calhoun,  Amer.  Hist.  Ass'n,  1899,  vol.  II,  p.  301. 


120  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

superseded  by  the  act  of  1740,  were  sometimes  held  up  by 
the  patrol  as  a  terror  to  the  slave;  and  there  is  related  in  a 
decision  of  the  Constitutional  Court,  f  in  a  suit  over  a  slave 
in  1823  as  a  part  of  the  facts,  that  the  slave  had  had  his 
ears  cropped  for  burglary.  About  the  only  provision  of 
the  act  of  1740  and  of  subsequent  acts*  relating  to  runaways 
made  it  the  duty  of  any  person  capturing  a  runaway  slave 
to  return  him  to  the  master  immediately  or  to  turn  him 
over  to  the  sheriff  within  four  days.  It  was  not  lawful  for 
the  captor  to  retain  a  runaway  slave  in  his  custody,  for  this 
would  naturally  give  him  opportunity  secretly  to  use  the 
slave's  services  until  the  master  should  find  him.  The 
sheriff  upon  receiving  a  runaway  gave  notice  in  the  news 
papers.  The  owner  upon  claiming  the  slave  was  required 
to  pay  the  necessary  expenses  of  his  capture  and  confine 
ment.  If  the  slave  should  be  unclaimed  after  eighteen 
months  he  was  to  be  sold  J  at  public  outcry,  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  his  keep,  or  "poundage"  as  it  was  sometimes 
called,  any  balance  over  expenses  to  go  into  the  public 
funds. 

There  were  in  some  communities  persons  who  made  it 
their  business  to  hunt  runaway  slaves  for  their  owners  for  a 
fee.  The  Rising  Sun,  of  Newberry,  on  July  28,  1858, 
carried  an  advertisement  placed  by  two  men  who  promised 
that  at  any  time  they  would  respond  to  a  call  for  their 
services  for  $5  per  diem  "whether  successful  or  not."  "All 
captures  $10  without  resistance,  where  there  is  resistance, 
$10  to  $50;  have  dogs  and  are  always  ready  to  attend  to 
business."  The  autobiography  of  Stroyer,  a  negro,  says 
his  master  kept  a  man  on  the  plantation  to  hunt  runaway 
negroes  with  dogs. 

Often,  particularly  in  the  lower  part  of  the  state,  several 
runaway  slaves  would  band  together  and  form  a  sort  of 
runaway  camp  in  the  swamps  where  they  lived  in  hiding, 
maintaining  themselves  by  theft  from  the  neighboring 
fields  and  fowl  houses.  They  carried  with  them  rude  utensils 

fl  Harper  (Law),  25:  Owens  vs.  Ford. 

*1740,  Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  405,  sec.  25;  1751,  Statutes  at  Large, 
VII,  420,  sec.  17;  1788,  Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  430. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  121 

with  which  they  cooked  their  meals  over  the  fire.  The 
following  news  item  from  the  Marion  Star  of  June  18, 
1861,  will  give  a  fair  picture  of  such  a  camp: 

"Runaways — Last  Tuesday  a  party  of  gentlemen 
from  this  place  went  in  search  of  runaways  who  wore 
thought  to  be  in  a  swamp  two  miles  from  here.  A 
trail  was  discovered  which,  winding  about  much, 
conducted  the  party  to  a  knoll  in  the  swamp  on  which 
corn,  squashes,  and  peas  were  growing  and  a  camp 
had  been  burnt.  Continuing  the  search,  another 
patch  of  corn,  etc.,  was  found  and  a  camp  from  which 
several  negroes  fled,  leaving  two  small  negro  children, 
each  about  a  year  old.  .  .  .  There  were  several 
guns  fired  at  the  negroes  who  fled  from  the  camp  but 
none  proved  effectual.  The  camp  seemed  well  pro 
vided  with  meal,  cooking  utensils,  blankets,  etc. 
The  party  returned,  having  taken  the  two  children, 
twelve  guns  and  one  axe.  .  .  .  Means  should 
immediately  be  taken  for  the  capture  of  these  run 
aways,  as  they  are  probably  lurking  about  this  place."* 
One  such  gang  of  outlaws  was  serious  enough  in  1816 
to  cause  the  governor  to  order  a  special  foray  by  the  militia. 
He  gives  the  following  account  of  it  in  his  messaage  to  the 
legislature  in  that  year: 

"A  few  runaway  negroes,  concealing  themselves  in 
the  swamps  and  marshes  contiguous  to  Combahee 
and  Ashepoo  rivers,  not  having  been  interrupted 
in  their  petty  plunderings  for  a  long  time,  formed  the 
nucleus  around  which  the  ill-disposed  and  audacious 
near  them  gathered  until  at  length  their  robberies 
became  too  serious  to  be  suffered  with  impunity. 
Attempts  were  then  made  to  disperse  them,  which, 
either  from  insufficiency  of  numbers  or  bad  arrange 
ment,  served  by  their  failure  only  to  encourage  a 
wanton  destruction  of  property.  Their  force  now 
became  alarming,  not  less  from  its  numbers  than  from 

*Another  similar  description  of  a  runaway  camp  is  printed  in  U.  B. 
Phillips'  Ed.  Plantation  and  Frontier,  in  Documentary  History  of 
American  Industrial  Society,  vol.  II,  p.  91. 


122  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

the  arms  and  amunition  with  which  it  was  supplied. 
The  peculiar  situation  of  that  part  of  our  coast 
rendered  access  to  them  difficult,  while  the  numerous 
creeks  and  water  courses  through  the  marshes  and 
around  the  islands  furnished  them  easy  opportunities 
in  plunder,  not  only  the  planters  in  open  day,  but  the 
inland  coasting  trade  also,  without  leaving  a  trace 
of  their  movements  by  which  they  could  be  pursued. 
There  was  but  one  more  stage  to  a  state  of  things 
altogether  intolerable,  to  prevent  which  I  felt  it  my 
duty  to  use  the  public  force  and  public  money.  I, 
therefore,  ordered  Col.  Wm.  Youngblood  to  take  the 
necessary  measures  for  suppressing  them,  and  author 
ized  him  to  incur  the  necessary  expenses  of  such  an 
expedition.  This  was  immediately  executed.  By  a 
judicious  employment  of  the  militia  under  his  com 
mand  he  either  captured  or  destroyed  the  whole 
body." 

This  will  show  that  the  runaway  was  a  menace  to  the 
peace  of  the  community  and  affected  not  only  the  master 
but  other  persons  who  might  be  the  victims  of  his  depre 
dation.  It  was  with  that  feeling  that  more  than  a  hundred 
years  earlier  the  following  resolution  was  passed  by  the 
colonial  assembly:* 

"The  House  being  informed  that  there  are  several 
negroes  run  away  from  their  masters,  and  keep  out, 
armed,  and  robbing  and  plundering  houses  and  plan 
tations,  and  putting  the  inhabitants  of  this  Province 
in  great  fear  and  terror.  Resolved  by  this  House  that 
the  Governor  be  addressed  to  take  effectual  care  to 
apprehend,  take  and  suppress  the  said  runaways  and 
assure  his  Honor  that  this  House  will,  at  all  times, 
be  ready  to  concur  with  the  Governor  and  Council 
in  defraying  the  expenses  of  soe  good  and  neces 
sary  a  designe." 

*Quoted  in  a  pamphlet:  Refutation  of  Calumnies  against  the  South 
ern  and  Western  States,  by  a  Carolinian.  Date  of  resolution  is  given 
as  June  11,  1711. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  123 

With  a  similar  feeling  the  Charleston  grand  jury,  in  its 
presentment  in  1776,  recommended,! 

"that  all  fugitives  after  so  many  months'  absence 
should    be    deemed    outlaws,    and    subject    to    death 
without  sentence  or  expense  to  the  province." 
The  following  quotation  from  the  Senate  Journal  of  Dec. 
6,  1816,*  will  illustrate  that  at  a  later  date  the  runaway 
was  regarded  and  treated  very  much  as  an  outlaw: 

'The  report  on  the  petition  of  Edward  Brailsford, 
praying  compensation  for  the  loss  of  two  runaway 
negroe   slaves   who    were   killed    by   a    patrole,    viz: 
That  they   have   had   the  same   under  consideration 
and  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  prayer  thereof  ought 
not  to  be  granted,  the  more  especially  as  there  is  no 
provision  made  by  law  for  the  payment  of  such  losses." 
Another  evil   from  which   the  South   suffered   was  the 
enticing  away  by  abolitionists  through  the  "underground 
railroad."     South    Carolina   suffered   less   in   this   respect 
than    the    border    states.     Conditions    similar,    however, 
in  their  effects  to  this  were  when  the  settlement  in  Florida, 
which   until   1819  was  Spanish,   continued  to  seduce  the 
Carolina  slaves  from  their  loyalty.     It  is  mentioned  here, 
for  while  probably  only  a  comparatively  few  were  lost  to  the 
state  in  that  way,  still  it  was  a  problem  in  which  the 
Southern    slaveowner  was  interested.     Not    only  was  the 
abolitionist    interested    but    the    slave    thief    had    greater 
opportunity  to  ply  his  business.     DeBow's  Review\\  estimat 
ed  that  the  South  lost  1,540  slaves  every  year  in  this  way. 
The  Rising  Sun  (Newberry)  on  January  18,  1860,  quoted 
another  authority  to  the  effect  that  there  were  probably 
45,000  slaves  in  Canada  at  that  time.     Siebert§  estimates 
that  between  1830  and  1860  Ohio  aided  in  the  escape  of 
"not  less  than"  40,000  slaves,  more  than  one  thousand  per 
annum;  and  that  during  the  last  quarter  century  of  the 
existence  of  slavery   in  the  South   Philadelphia  aided  in 
9,000  escapes. 

\South  Carolina  Gazette,  June  2,  1776. 

*MS.  copies  in  S.  C.  Historical  Commission's  Archives,  p.  101. 

||IX,  570. 

§American  Historical  Review,  I,  455. 


124  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

CHAPTER    XIII 
The  Seamen  Acts 

There  was,  as  has  just  been  intimated,  a  constant  dis 
trust  of  the  negroes  and  particularly  any  decided  increase 
of  the  free  negro  population  by  immigration.  This  was 
not  without  reason,  for  a  free  negro  could  easily  enter  from 
the  outside  and  conduct  insurrectionary  movements  as 
was  actually  the  case  in  the  Vesey  plot. 

The  people  of  the  state  and  the  authorities  found  it 
comparatively  easy  to  deal  with  the  casual  free  negro  im 
migrant.  But  after  the  disclosure  of  the  Vesey  plot  it 
was  deemed  unsafe  to  allow  the  temporary  presence  of  free 
negroes  who  might  happen  to  be  in  the  crews  of  trading 
vessels.  Their  fears  were  founded  on  altogether  possible 
conditions;  such  a  colored  seaman  might  distribute  in 
cendiary  literature  or  by  the  air  of  superiority  to  which 
the  race  is  prone  cause  dissatisfaction  among  the  slave 
population.  But  the  means  for  preventing  this  undesirable 
contact  was  not  the  happiest  of  expedients — it  was  drastic 
to  say  the  least,  though  it  was  the  method  of  other  states 
as  well  as  South  Carolina.*  This  law  of  1822 f  was  none 
other  than  an  order  to  the  sheriff  to  arrest  and  closely 
confine  any  free  negroes  who  happened  to  be  in  the  crew 
of  any  trading  vessel  coming  into  port  and  retain  them  in 
custody  until  the  vessel  was  ready  to  leave.  The  captain 
wak  held  responsible  under  heavy  penalties  for  the  due 
removal  of  such  negroes  when  the  vessel  should  leave, 
and  wafckheld  also  financially  liable  for  the  jail  fees  incurred 
by  their  detention.  The  act  of  1835§  is  more  elaborate 
but  is  substantially  the  same  with  the  exception  that  a 
bond  of  $1,000  is  required  of  the  captain  of  a  vessel  having 
free  negroes  in  its  crew  to  guarantee  their  due  removal,  and 
in  case  the  captain  refuses  to  enter  into  such  bond  he  must 

*Alabama,   Louisiana  and   Georgia  are   mentioned   in    Report   80, 
27th  Cong.,  3rd  Sess.,  1843. 
tStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  461. 
§Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  470. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  125 

remove  his  vessel  out  one  hundred  and  fifty  yards  from  the 
wharf  and  leave  port  within  twenty-four  hours. 

It  was  inevitable  that  these  laws,  now  known  as  the  sea 
men  acts,  would  sooner  or  later  bring  the  state  into  con 
flict  either  with  other  states  of  the  union,  when  the  control 
of  interstate  traffic  by  the  federal  government  was  not  so 
common  or  well  understood  as  it  is  today;  or  it  would  bring 
the  state,  or  rather  the  federal  government,  into  inter 
national  difficulties  with  foreign  governments.  The  state 
had  a  clear  and  from  its  point  of  view  not  unintelligent 
policy  of  police  precaution.  But  it  was  not  reasonable 
to  expect  other  nations  or  even  other  sections  of  the  union 
to  see  it  in  that  light.  For  them  to  see  or  hear  of  a  member 
of  their  crew,  probably  a  citizen  or  subject,  led  off  to  jail 
with  not  even  the  semblance  of  a  charge  against  him — 
the  only  answer  apparently  being  "he  is  black" — was 
bound  to  call  forth  protest.  To  South  Carolina  it  meant 
a  police  regulation;  to  the  outside  trader  it  meant  unwar 
ranted  restriction  of  trade  privileges. 

Apparently  the  first  month  of  the  new  year,  1823,  saw 
wholesale  arrests  of  such  seamen  at  the  ports,  in  one  case 
not  a  single  person  was  left  to  guard  the  vessel  in  the  ab 
sence  of  the  captain. f  Among  the  number  was  a  colored 
seaman,  Peter  Petrie,  one  of  the  crew  of  the  British  liner, 
Marmion.  Petrie  was  a  subject  of  His  Majesty  the  King 
of  England.  The  British  consul  at  Charleston  made  formal 
protest  and  reported  the  facts  to  his  home  government, 
which  in  turn  made  complaint  to  the  government  at  Wash 
ington.  President  Monroe  referred  the  matter  to  Attorney- 
General  Wirt  for  an  opinion.  This  opinion,  rendered  May 
8,  1824,  took  the  ground  that  South  Carolina  had  no  such 
power  to  regulate  and  interfere  with  foreign  and  inter 
state  commerce,  this  power  resting  solely  with  the  federal 
government;  in  addition  to  this  the  United  States  had  a 
trade  agreement  with  Great  Britain  which  did  not  stipu 
late  that  any  such  restrictions  should  be  placed.  This 
opinion,  together  with  all  the  papers,  was  transmitted  to 

fStatement  made  by  Federal  Judge  Johnson  in  the  case  ex  parte 
Elkison  (referred  to  below).  Kept.  80.  p.  27,  27th  Cong.,  3rd  Sess. 


126  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

Governor  Wilson  of  South  Carolina.  The  latter  submitted 
them  in  the  fall  to  the  legislature  with  a  message  uphold 
ing  the  rights  of  the  state  to  pass  such  regulations  for  its 
protection  from  a  class  of  persons  whose  condition  is 
dangerous  to  its  well  being,  as  it  would  have  to  protect 
itself  against  infectious  disease.  The  state  senate  and 
house  of  representatives  each  passed  a  different  set  of 
resolutions,  the  house  having  laid  the  senate  resolutions 
on  the  table,  upholding  the  state's  policy,  while  those  of  the 
latter  pointed  out  that  the  law  is  in  no  sense  a  commercial 
regulation  but  a  police  measure  and  could  not  be  repealed. 
In  the  words  of  a  newspaper  correspondent,*  "the  whole 
matter  rests  precisely  in  the  state  where  it  was  before  it 
had  been  brought  to  the  view  of  the  legislature. "f 

Apparently  at  about  the  same  time  another  line  of  action 
was  taken  up  by  the  British  government,  namely  to  go 
into  the  federal  courts  to  test  the  validity  of  the  South 
Carolina  laws  on  the  subject.  At  first  Judge  Johnson 
requested  that  the  case  be  taken  to  the  state  courts  be 
lieving  that  they  would  correct  the  evil  complained  of. 
Whether  or  not  this  was  done,  it  was  later  entered  in  the 
Federal  District  Court  as  "Ex  parte  Henry  Elkison,  a 
subject  of  His  Brittanic  Majesty,  vs.  Francis  Delisieseline, 
sheriff  of  Charleston  District,"  and  a  decision  was  rendered 
in  August  7,  1823.  Judge  Johnson,  a  native  of  Charleston, 
says  of  the  law  in  his  decision : 

"Upon  the  whole  I  am  decidedly  of  opinion  that  the 
3rd  section  of  the  State  Act  now  under  consideration 
is  unconstitutional  and  void  and  that  every  arrest 
made  under  it  subjects  the  parties  making  it  to  an 
action  of  trespass." 

His  opinion,  however,  was  that  habeas  corpus  rested  with 
the  state  to  be  granted  and  that  in  the  absence  of  positive 

*  Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  22,  1824. 

fFor  this  account  recourse  was  had  to  the  Senate  document  referred 
to,  and  newspapers,  chiefly  the  Charleston  City  Gazette,  which  for  Dec.  7, 
1824,  has  all  the  documents  referred  to.  All  the  legislative  proceedings 
and  debates  are  reported  fully  in  the  Gazette  and  Charleston  Courier 
and  other  local  papers, 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  127 

congressional  enactment  he  as  federal  judge  was  powerless 
to  render  relief.* 

Again,  in  1830,  Daniel  Eraser,  a  colored  subject  of  the 
King  of  England  was  arrested  by  the  sheriff  of  Charleston 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act.  The  British  consul 
wrote  a  note  to  the  sheriff  couched  in  considerate  language, 
stating  that  he  appreciated  the  difficulties  under  which 
the  people  of  the  state  labored,  but  added  that  it  had  hap 
pened  heretofore  that  British  subjects  had  been  released 
on  the  representations  of  the  home  government.  It  is 
probable  that  the  law  was  not  strictly  enforced  against 
seamen  on  foreign  vessels.!  The  sheriff  referred  the  letter 
to  the  attorney-general  of  the  state,  who  replied  that  as 
much  as  he  regretted  such  a  state  of  affairs  he  was  aware 
that  not  only  was  it  the  law  but  that  it  was  the  settled 
policy  of  the  state  that  the  law  should  be  enforced,  stating 
his  reasons  as  follows: 

"But  as  a  member  of  the  Legislature,  I  know  that 
several  efforts  have  been  made  within  a  few  years  past 
to  relax  the  policy  of  these  laws  and  that  they  all 
have  decidedly  failed.  It  is  not  more  than  a  fort 
night  since  I  had  myself  the  honor  of  reporting  a 
bill  from  the  Charleston  delegation  to  relieve  the 
commerce  of  Charleston  of  some  of  the  embarrass 
ments  caused  by  these  acts;  but  this  bill  too,  it  seems, 
has  failed  even  in  the  House  of  Representatives — 
that  branch  of  the  Legislature  hitherto  most  favorable 
to  the  amendments  proposed." 

Eraser  was  soon  afterwards  released  on  condition  that  his 
vessel  should  move  out  from  all  communication  with  the 
land.§ 

Transcript  of  the  Elkison  case  and  other  facts  concerning  it  are  to 
be  found  in  Rept.  No.  80,  p.  27,  Repts.  of  Committees  27th  Cong., 
3rd  Sess.  Judge  O'Neall,  in  his  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina, 
vol.  I,  p.  76,  in  the  sketch  of  Judge  Johnson,  speaks  of  Judge  Johnson's 
view  as  an  unpopular  one.  He  calls  it  the  "Elkington  case." 

fMinority  Rept.  Com.  No.  80,  27th  Cong.,  3rd  Sess. 

§The  letters  passed  and  all  facts  of  the  Fraser  incident  are  to  be 
found  in  Rept.  80,  Repts.  Corns.  27th  Cong.,  3rd  Sess. 


128  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

Another  case  occurred  in  1843.  A  British  free  negro, 
Jim  Jones,  was  arrested  and  imprisoned  by  the  Charleston 
sheriff.  Because  he  was  ordered  to  sweep  the  lower  floor 
of  the  jail  he  cursed  the  jailer  villainously  in  the  presence 
of  the  other  colored  prisoners.  Governor  Hammond,  in 
his  message  No.  3,  calls  attention  to  the  undesirabil- 
ity  of  confining  negro  seamen  with  other  prisoners  and 
recommended  that  the  former  be  prohibited  by  law 
from  entering  the  city  beyond  limits  to  be  fixed  by  the 
municipal  authorities.  This  he  pointed  out  would  obviate 
the  objection  of  foreign  powers  to  the  imprisonment  of 
parts  of  the  crews  of  their  vessels  and  still  carry  into  effect 
the  purpose  of  the  former  police  regulations.  A  bill  em 
bodying  the  governor's  recommendation  passed  the  house 
of  representatives  by  a  vote  of  68  to  32, — the  vote  of  the 
Charleston  delegation  being  divided  8  for  and  7  against 
any  change.  It  was  lost  in  the  senate  by  a  vote  of  27 
to  14.* 

It  appears  that  the  British  consul  had  in  1850  made 
formal  protest  to  the  legislature  against  the  vigorous 
enforcement  of  the  act  discriminating  against  subjects  of 
color  of  the  English  king  and  that  a  joint  committee  of 
both  houses  to  whom  the  matter  was  referred  recommended 
that  no  change  be  made.f 

Two  more  cases  for  British  complaint  arose  in  1852. 
Manuel  Pereira,  a  negro,  was  taken  from  a  British  vessel 
that  had  been  driven  into  port  by  storm  on  March  24; 
again,  on  June  9,  Reuben  Roberts,  a  negro,  in  the  crew  of  a 
Clyde  liner,  was  arrested.  The  British  government  brought 
on  legal  action  praying  the  right  of  habeas  corpus  for 
Pereira  in  the  state  court,  but  the  writ  was  refused  by 
Judge  Withers.!  In  behalf  of  Roberts  a  suit  for  damages 
in  the  amount  of  $4,000  against  the  sheriff  was  brought  in 

Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  18,  19,  1843.  The  governor's  message  No. 
3  of  that  year  is  the  source  of  the  facts  of  this  incident. 

fGovernor's  annual  message  1852. 

§Account  "Manuel  Pereira"  by  F.  C.  Adams,  London.  No  date  of 
publication  appears.  In  this  quasi-fictitious  story  Pereira  is  made  to 
be  a  half  Spaniard. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  129 

the  federal  court  alleging  "assault  and  false  imprisonment."* 
These  suits  seem  to  have  been  friendly  and  were  brought  by 
the  consul  at  the  direction  of  his  home  government,  f 
The  plaintiff  relied  upon  treaties  with  the  United  States 
to  support  his  complaint.  The  judge  of  the  Federal 
District  Court  directed  a  verdict  to  be  entered  in  favor 
of  the  sheriff.  An  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,!  but  was  afterwards  abandoned 
by  the  British  government,  the  costs  being  assumed  by 
the  plaintiff.t 

The  other  source  of  protest  against  these  laws  was 
Massachusetts.  Among  those  who  had  fallen  under  their 
enforcement  were  free  colored  persons  recognized  as  citi 
zens  of  that  state.  In  1842  one  hundred  and  fifty-five 
merchants  interested  in  Southern  trade  sent  a  petition  to 
congress  praying  for  some  relief  from  the  hampering  of 
their  business  by  these  laws.  1 1  The  memorial  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Commerce  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives.  This  committee,  on  January  20,  1843,  brought 
in  a  majority  and  minority  report  accompanied  by  all  the 
papers  accumulated  in  the  Department  of  State  relative 
to  the  international  notes  passed  between  the  United 
States  government  and  the  English  government  already 
referred  to.**  The  majority  report,  following  the  lines 
of  Attorney-General  Wirt's  reasoning  in  1823,  expressed 
the  belief  that  the  action  of  South  Carolina  in  enacting 
and  enforcing  such  a  law  was  not  lawful,  but  declared  its 
belief  that  Congress  had  no  preventive  power  in  the  case, 
adding  that  the  federal  courts  probably  do  have  such 
power,  ft 

*Gov.  Means'  annual  message,  1852. 

^Charleston  Mercury,  April  13,  1853. 

^Charleston  Mercury,  April  22,   1853. 

^Governor's  message,  1853. 

IJA  memorial  had  been  sent  to  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Con 
gress  in  1823,  Niles  Register,  XXIV,  31. 

**Rept.  Corns.  No.  80,  27th  Cong.,  3rd  Sess. 

ffContrast  with  Judge  Johnson's  opinion  in  1823,  that  the  court  hM 
no  such  power  in  the  absence  of  specific  enactment, 


130  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

A  minority  report  was  made  in  which  it  was  recited  that 
the  cause  of  such  an  act  in  South  Carolina  was  the  Vesey 
plot  and  that  in  other  states  similar  danger  and  the  in 
cendiary  activity  of  the  abolitionists  at  the  North  had 
caused  the  enactment  of  similar  laws ;  it  is  denied  that  citi 
zenship  in  Massachusetts  confers  citizenship  in  any  and 
every  other  state.  If  the  status  of  the  person  is  determined 
by  his  domicile  why,  it  is  asked,  does  Massacusetts  refuse 
to  recognize  a  negro  from  South  Carolina  as  a  slave  since 
that  is  his  status  there.  The  right  of  police  laws  to  be 
enacted  by  each  state  to  suit  its  own  needs  was  inalienable — 
quarantine  laws  being  used  as  an  illustration.  The  mi 
nority  report  was  accompanied  by  an  opinion  of  Attorney- 
General  Berrien  rendered  in  1831  on  the  subject,  f  The 
grounds  of  this  opinion  was  substantially  the  basis  of  the 
minority  report,  the  illustration  of  that  of  domicile  was 
that  of  England  instead  of  Massachusetts;  the  quarantine 
laws  are  also  used  an  an  illustration. 

Massachusetts  apparently  was  not  satisfied  with  letting 
matters  rest  with  this,  and  in  1843  the  legislature  of  that 
state  authorized  the  governor  to  appoint  a  representative 
of  the  state  at  Charleston*  to  secure  names  and  information 
concerning  such  negroes  of  that  state  as  had  been  imprisoned 
but  not  charged  with  crime,  and  to  bring  one  or  more  suits 
to  test  the  validity  of  these  laws.  Some  difficulty  was 
encountered  in  securing  any  person  either  a  resident  of 
Charleston  or  one  at  home  to  undertake  the  mission. 
Finally  the  venerable  Samuel  Hoar,  of  more  than  three 
score,  ventured  upon  the  delicate  task.  He  arrived  in 
Charleston  on  November  28,  1844,  while  the  South  Caro 
lina  legislature  was  in  session.  He  respectfully  wrote 
Governor  Hammond  apprising  him  of  the  purpose  of  his 
mission.  The  latter  referred  the  communication  to  the 
Carolina  law-making  body  then  in  session  with  an  ex 
planation  in  a  special  message.  On  December  5,  the  House 
Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  to  whom  the  message  and 

fin  interpretation  of  just  what  case  is  not  apparent,  but  probably 
it  was  the  English  Eraser  case  of  1830. 
*Also  at  New  Orleans. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  131 

letter  had  been  referred,  made  its  report  declaring  this 
action  to  be  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  interfering  with 
the  institutions  of  the  state  and  disturbing  her  peace.  It 
directed  the  governor  to  use  what  means  were  necessary 
for  the  immediate  removal  of  Agent  Hoar  from  the  state 
and  that  these  resolutions — passed  with  only  one  dissent 
ing  vote — be  laid  before  the  governor  of  Massachusetts. 

But  this  official  action  was  unnecessary,  for  Charleston 
was  already  dealing  with  the  situation  in  its  own  summary 
way.  Excitement  in  the  city  was  high.  The  sheriff, 
those  interested  in  the  peace  of  the  city  and  friends  of 
Mr.  Hoar,  called  upon  him  urging  him  to  withdraw,  repre 
senting  to  him  the  personal  danger  he  incurred  by  delay. 
He  was  loath  to  leave  without  in  some  measure  attempting 
to  fulfill  his  mission.  The  apparent  risk  grew  more  visible 
until  fairly  by  pressure  he  was  shown  to  a  waiting  carriage 
and  was  soon  aboard  a  boat  leaving  the  harbor.  Thus 
the  unpleasant  incident  was  closed.* 

'  'Stand-pat"  is  a  phrase  that  can  aptly  be  applied  to 
South  Carolina  slave  legislation.  The  natural  conserva 
tism  of  the  people  and  the  sensitiveness  of  the  slaveholding 
aristocracy  to  any  attack  on  the  institution  of  slavery, 
together  with  a  general  hesitancy  of  everybody  to  fly  to 
dangers  they  might  not  know  of,  kept  these  laws  on  the 
statute  books  until  1865.  In  1855  Governor  Adams,  in 
his  message  to  the  legislature,  earnestly  recommended  the 
abolition  of  these  laws,  adding  that  the  conditions  under 
which  they  had  been  enacted  had  materially  changed  and 
the  supremacy  of  the  state  in  its  police  control  had  been 
fully  vindicated.  The  only  possible  service  they  could 
render  at  this  time  was  to  call  down  upon  the  state  further 
ill  will.  The  Charleston  Mercury  of  November  30,  1855, 
in  an  editorial,  agreed  heartily  with  the  governor.  On  the 
other  hand  "A  Carolina  Planter"  takes  issue  with  this  view 
in  the  Charleston  Courier  of  December  8,  1855.  The 
Mercury  within  a  few  days  comes  back  with  this  retort: 

*Messages  of  the  governors  of  S.  C.  and  of  Mass,  and  Hoar's  account 
in  his  report  to  the  Legislature  of  Mass.,  reprinted  in  the  Old  South 
Leaflets,  No.  140.  Also  Niles  Register,  vol.  27,  pp.  261-263;  vol.  67,  pp, 
315-317, 


132  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

"We  presume  that  if  a  count  were  made  it  would  be 
found  that  every  opponent  of  the  change  is  a  country 
planter  or  a  country  resident.  The  city  does  not 
fear  the  consequences  of  a  change.  It  is  our  country 
friends  that  take  the  trouble  to  be  frightened  for  our 
sake." 

It  is  not  probable,  however,  that  the  above  deliverance 
as  to  the  supporters  of  the  law  could  have  been  made  in 
the  early  years  of  its  enforcement.  Robert  Y.  Hayne,  in 
a  letter*  to  a  friend  in  1824,  has  this  to  say  of  the  seamen 
acts  which  it  will  be  interesting  to  quote: 

"The  proceedings  of  our  Legislature  on  the  free 
negro  question  are  certainly  not  very  acceptable 
here  and  I  think  it  is  very  much  to  be  regretted  that 
a  tone  of  at  least  more  moderation  has  not  accom 
panied  whatever  measures  were  deemed  necessary 
on  the  present  occasion.  South  Carolina,  I  assure  you, 
has  a  character  to  sustain  and  her  own  dignity  re 
quires  that  no  intemperate  expression,  no  threats 
of  forcible  resistance  to  the  national  government 
should  ever  be  resorted  to." 

Indeed  it  is  not  quite  clear  what  class  it  was  that  moved 
the  enactment  and  enforcement  of  the  law.  Judge  John 
son,  before  referred  to  in  this  connection,  said  in  a  private 
letter  to  Secretary  Adams  on  July  3,1824,f  that  there  existed 
a  "South  Carolina  Association"  that  pressed  for  the  enact 
ment  of  these  laws  and  was  providing  for  their  enforcement. 
In  his  opinion  in  the  Elkison  case  he  says:§ 

"Certain,  however,  it  is  that  from  that  time  [i.  e., 
the  time  of  the  arrests  of  Jan.,  1823]  the  prosecutions 
under  this  act  were  discontinued  until  lately  revived 
by  a  voluntary  association  of  gentlemen  who  have  or 
ganized  themselves  into  a  society  to  see  the  laws 
carried  into  effect.  .  .  .  It  is  due  to  the  State 

*Letters  from  Washington  to  C.  C.  Pinckney,  Jr.,  Dec.  21,  1824, 
reprinted  in  full  in  Jervey:  Hayne  and  His  Time,  p.  181. 

fPrinted  along  with  the  papers  in  Reports  of  Committees,  80,  27th 
Congress,  3rd  Session. 

§Repts.  Corns.,  80,  27th  Cong.,  3rd  Sess. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  133 

officers  to  remark  that  from  the  time  that  they  have 

understood  that  this  law  has  been  complained  of  on 

the   ground   of   its   unconstitutionality   and   injurious 

effects    upon    our    commerce    and    foreign    relations 

they  have  shown  every  disposition  to  let  it  sleep."* 

He  goes  on  to  say  that  in  the  case  in  hand  the  state's 

attorney-general  did    not  appear  to   defend  the    case  but 

it  was  defended  by  "the  Solicitor  of  the  Association.''! 


CHAPTER    XIV 
Negro  Gatherings  for  Religious  and  Social  Purposes 

One  of  the  things  for  which  the  ante-bellum  South  has 
been  criticised  in  the  management  of  her  colored  popu 
lation  was  the  restrictions  on  their  religious  instruction. 
Probably  this  criticism  would  have  been  made  with  less 
vigor  had  it  been  generally  known  that  the  laws  which  in 
the  letter  were  rigid  were  almost  entirely  ignored  as  regards 
meetings  for  strictly  religious  purposes  when  no  appre 
hension  of  insurrectionary  activity  was  aroused.  But 
the  reason  for  not  giving  free  rein  even  for  religious  meet 
ings  lay  in  the  ever-present  fear  of  servile  insurrection. 
The  patrol  act  of  1837§  made  it  the  duty  of  every  officer 
of  the  militia  to  break  up  any  meeting  or  cabal  of  negroes 
which  might  come  to  his  notice,  summoning  for  the  purpose 

*Contrast  this  with  the  claims  of  those  so  molested  that  the  fee 
was  what  attracted  the  sheriff  to  activity. 

tWhether  this  association  was  formed  of  those  industrially  opposed 
to  the  free  negro,  whether  it  was  peculiar  to  Charleston,  whether  the 
policy  was  not  at  first  upheld  by  the  rest  of  the  state,  the  writer  has  been 
unable  to  determine.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  if  such  an  organi 
zation  was  necessary  at  the  first,  whatever  might  have  been  its  motive, 
such  necessity  did  not  long  continue,  for  apparently  it  soon  became 
the  fixed  policy  of  the  state.  It  is  merely  suggested  that  this  associa 
tion  later  had  some  connection  with  the  anti-abolition  societies. 

§Statutes  at  Large,  III,  461,  sec.  14. 


134  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

a  necessary  number  of  the  men  under  his  command.  Simi 
larly  the  law  of  1740f  provided  that  any  justice  of  the  peace 
on  information  of  any  meeting  of  negroes  should  order  the 
same  to  disperse,  summoning  such  aid  as  would  be  neces 
sary.  Section  43  of  that  act  made  it  lawful  for  any  white 
persons  to  arrest  and  punish  with  not  more  than  twenty 
lashes  each  of  any  number  of  male  slaves  exceeding  seven 
found  travelling  in  the  road  together  without  a  white  per 
son  in  their  company.  It  is  safe  to  conjecture  in  this  last 
instance  that  few  people  in  later  years  knew  there  was 
such  a  law  on  the  statute  books  and  would  not  have  under 
taken  to  enforce  it  if  they  had  been  aware  of  it  unless  they 
believed  the  negroes  on  mischief  bent;  and  in  that  case 
a  less  number  than  seven  would  not  have  saved  the  group 
from  castigation  for  which  some  legal  excuse  could  have  been 
found.  These  enactments  and  their  abeyance  illustrate 
the  futility  of  trying  to  maintain  a  strict  police  system  by 
law.  The  dominant  race  in  the  South  depended  more  upon 
expediency  than  upon  fine-spun  legal  enactments  in  their 
dealings  with  the  inferior. 

No  one  act  dealt  particularly  with  the  matter  of  slave 
meetings  until  1800*  when  a  law  was  passed  which  made 
unlawful  all  assemblages  of  slaves  and  free  negroes  for 
mental  instruction,  even  with  whites  present,  "in  a  con 
fined  or  secret  place  of  meeting,"  behind  "barred,  bolted 
or  locked  doors"  so  as  to  prevent  free  ingress  or  egress 
from  the  same.  All  civil  or  military  officers  of  the  law 
were  authorized  to  disperse  such  meetings  and  "if  they  deem 
it  necessary"  inflict  twenty  lashes  on  all  free  persons  of 
color  or  turn  them  over  to  the  constable,  who,  if  the  magis 
trate  should  so  decide,  might  inflict  like  punishment.  The 
act  further  prohibited  all  meetings  of  negroes  for  religious 
or  mental  instruction  between  sunset  and  sunrise. §  This 
latter  provision  interfered  very  seriously  with  the  religious 
meetings  held  by  the  Methodist  churches  for  the  benefit 

tStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  399,  sec.  7. 
"Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  440. 

§The  patrol  law  of  1819  already  referred  to  authorized  the  breaking 
down  of  windows  and  doors  by  the  patrol  to  carry  out  this  provision. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  135 

of  the  negroes,  because  it  often  happened  that,  owing  prob 
ably  to  lack  of  a  full  supply  of  ministers,  it  was  convenient 
to  hold  these  meetings  at  night.  It  was  also  a  custom  of 
this  denomination  to  hold  "class  meetings,"  and  the  doors 
were  locked  to  prevent  needless  interruption  to  the  services 
of  testimony.  Similar  meetings  were  held  by  the  ''class 
leaders"  for  the  negroes.  These  would  be  violations  of 
the  law  as  it  then  stood.  Accordingly  the  Methodist 
societies  petitioned  the  legislature  for  a  modification  of 
the  law  of  1800.  f  Hence  as  a  result  this  act  was  modified 
in  1803  by  making  it  unlawful  for  any  person  to  break  into 
any  such  meeting  before  9  p.  m.,  provided  a  majority  of 
those  present  were  white,  without  a  warrant  from  a  justice 
of  the  peace,  unless  no  justice  lived  within  three  miles.* 

An  opportunity  for  an  interpretation  of  this  law  came  in 
1818  in  the  case  of  Bell  vs.  Graham, §  which  arose  as  follows: 
At  Shady  Grove  Methodist  church  in  Fairfield  district 
regular  meetings  composed  of  whites  and  blacks  for  re 
ligious  purpose  were  held  in  daytime  with  open  doors.  The 
meetings  were  so  often  disturbed  by  the  patrol  that  min 
isters  refused  to  preach  there.  But  a  sturdy  "class  leader" 
attempted  to  keep  up  the  meetings.  On  one  occasion 
the  patrol  came  and,  apparently  without  examining  the 
negroes  to  see  if  they  held  written  passes,  dispersed  the 
meeting,  severely  whipping  one  negro  and  threatening  the 
others. *  It  was  impossible  later  for  either  side  to  show 
whether  or  not  a  majority  of  those  present  were  white. 
The  class  leader  was  prevailed  upon  to  prosecute  the 
beat  captain  for  unwarranted  disturbance  of  religious 
worship,  but  the  grand  jury  refused  to  return  a  true  bill 

fl  Nott  &  McCord,  283:    Bell  vs.  Graham. 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  448. 

§1  Nott  &  McCord,  278. 

tThe  writer's  maternal  grandfather  was  a  class  leader  and  often 
remained,  it  is  said,  after  the  service  for  the  whites,  when  the  negroes 
were  allowed  a  service  of  their  own,  consisting  mostly  of  song  and 
testimony,  exhortation  and  the  giving  of  religious  experiences.  Fre 
quently  another  person  in  the  community  who  was  not  in  sympathy 
with  the  church  or  the  negroes'  meeting  would  interfere,  but  would 
desist  when  he  found  that  the  negroes  had  their  passes. 


136  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

against  the  patrol.  The  captain  of  the  patrol  then  brought 
suit  to  recover  damages  for  false  imprisonment.  In  spite 
of  the  judge's  direction  to  the  contrary,  the  jury  assessed 
damages  to  the  amount  of  $56.25  against  the  class  leader, 
who  promptly  appealed  to  the  higher  court.  The  action 
of  the  two  juries — the  first  in  dismissing  the  case  against 
the  patrol,  and  the  latter  in  finding  a  bill  of  damages 
against  the  class  leader — is  a  clear  indication,  after  allow 
ance  for  possible  local  prejudices  have  been  made,  that 
the  attitude  of  the  authorities  was  always  to  give  large 
discretion  to  the  patrol  in  the  administration  of  its  duties. 
If,  as  is  possible,  local  prejudice  was  partly  responsible  for 
the  interruption  of  religious  meetings,  it  emphasizes  the 
careful  distinctions  the  court  would  make.  The  points 
considered  by  the  court  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 
The  right  of  undisturbed  worship  is  inalienable;  is  the 
captain  in  this  case  protected  by  the  patrol  laws?  Does 
the  act  of  1800  justify  the  patrol  in  disturbing  the  meeting? 
The  whipping  of  the  negro  was  unlawful  since  he  was  in 
the  company  of  white  persons.  The  plaintiff  failed  to 
show  that  there  was  not  a  majority  of  white  persons  present; 
the  doors  were  not  barred  nor  was  the  meeting  in  a  "con 
fined  and  secret  place,"  nor  was  it  after  nine  o'clock  in  the 
evening.  Even  were  a  majority  of  those  present  negroes 
the  law  would  not  apply  here  for  the  act  of  1803  was  passed 
with  the  purpose  of  lessening  the  severity  of  the  law  of 
1800  and  to  legalize  just  such  a  meeting  as  this  was : 

"It  would  indeed,  be  a  strange  anomaly  in  legis 
lation  to  legalize  an  evil,  which  it  was  their  avowed 
intention  to  prevent;  the  act  itself  warrants  no  such 
construction." 

The  verdict  of  $56.25  against  the  class  leader  was  set  aside. 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  patrol  captain,  in  so  far  as 
this  action  was  concerned,  went  free  as  an  officer  of  the 
law.  It  merely  relieved  the  person  who  undertook  to  call 
the  action  of  the  patrol  in  question  of  any  financial  embar 
rassment  consequent  upon  his  prosecution  of  the  patrol. 
This  case  had  a  pronounced  effect  upon  the  method  and 
manner  of  the  enforcement  of  the  patrol  law,  and  diminished 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  137 

the  severity  of  its  application  against  negro  meetings. 
Judge  O'Neall  said  later*  that  the  provisions  of  these  laws 
prohibiting  negro  meetings  were  dead  letters  in  so  far  as 
their  enforcement  was  concerned.!  Any  effort  definitely 
by  enactment  to  liberalize  these  laws  or  their  principles 
met  with  disfavor.  Several  petitions  with  this  in  view 
were  sent  to  the  legislature.  One  from  Sumter  with 
particularly  strong  endorsement  was  presented  in  1842 
and  apparently  caused  some  discussion,  but  it  was  referred 
to  the  judiciary  committee  which  reported  unfavorably. 
No  trace  of  its  ever  having  come  to  a  vote  in  any  way  is 
revealed  by  the  Journal. § 

Survivors  of  the  ante-bellum  period  say  that  the  custom 
in  the  rural  districts  was  for  assemblages  of  negroes  to 
meet  occasionally  on  Sunday  afternoons  for  religious  wor 
ship  and  instruction  and  if  one  white  person  was  present 
who  was  responsible  for  the  conduct  of  the  negroes  that 
were  present  with  their  written  passes,  even  if  the  negroes 
conducted  the  services,  all  the  requirements  of  the  senti 
ments  of  the  community  were  considered  satisfied.  Where 
the  slaves  did  not  greatly  outnumber  the  whites,  as  was 
the  case  on  the  up-country  farms,  a  gallery  or  the  rear 
of  the  church  was  set  apart  for  the  exclusive  use  of  such 
of  the  slaves  as  cared  to  attend  the  services  held  for 
the  whites. J  Sometimes  there  were  meetings  held  for  the 
negroes  just  after  the  service  for  the  whites,  when  no  white 
persons  other  than  the  minister  were  present.  There 
appears  to  have  been  no  objection  on  the  part  of  masters 
to  any  preaching  to  their  slaves  unless  there  was  reason 

*The  Negro  Law  in  South  Carolina  (published  1848),  p.  24. 

fit  would  appear  that  the  act  of  1819,  sec.  11,  repealed  the  "majority 
of  whites"  provision,  but  if  so  it,  too,  was  a  dead  letter.  It  came  to  be 
regarded  that  all  that  was  necessary  to  make  a  meeting  of  negroes  for 
religious  purposes  lawful  was  the  presence  of  a  white  man  who  would 
be  responsible  for  their  conduct.  The  chief  emphasis  of  sec.  11,  above 
referred  to,  seems  to  be  on  the  question  whether  or  not  a  meeting  were 
held  in  secret  and  behind  barred  doors  and  not  upon  the  percentage 
of  whites  in  the  meeting. 

§Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1842,  pp.  54,  85  and  100. 

*See  also  Phillips,  South  in  the  Building  of  the  Nation,  vol.  IV,  207. 


138  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

to  believe  that  the  person  exercising  this  privilege  was  hostile 
to  the  institution  of  slavery  or  would  inculcate  in  the  minds 
of  the  slaves  disturbing  ideas  that  would  tend  to  render 
them  discontented  with  their  condition.  Harrison,  in  his 
"Gospel  Among  the  Slaves,"  indicates  that  the  slave 
owners  were  glad  to  have  preaching  for  their  slaves  since 
it  increased  the  ease  of  control. 

On  the  other  hand  the  Southern  whites  were  ever  alert 
to  prevent  incendiary  preaching  to  their  slaves,  as  is  shown 
in  the  following  quotation  from  a  pamphlet  by  "A  Caro 
linian"  published  in  1823  while  the  attempted  Charleston 
insurrection  was  fresh  in  people's  minds  :f 

"Our  planters  have  just  cause  of  complaint  on  this 

subject  [i.  e.,  of  negro  meetings].     It  is  known  to  many 

that  field  negroes  have  been  collected  and  addressed 

without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of    their  masters. 

The  planters,  however,  are  nowT  alive  to  their  duty, 

and  their  interests,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  such 

highly  censurable  conduct  will  ever  be  repeated." 

The  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign 

Parts  was  chartered  by  William  III  in  1701.     Within  about 

a  half  a  century  of  this  time  it  had  established  a  school  for 

negroes   in   Charleston.     This   effort,  under   the   auspices 

of  the  Episcopal  Church,  was  perhaps  the  earliest  and  until 

the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  most  effective 

effort  to  reach  the  colored  population.     There  are  contained 

in  the  instructions  to  the  missionaries  specific  directions 

as  to  dealing  with  the  negroes.* 

Some  efforts  had  been  made  by  others  soon  afterwards, 
if  not  contemporaneously.  The  Methodists  reported 
890  colored  members  in  1796  and  by  1821  they  numbered 
42,059.  The  Baptists  in  1806  reported  3,500.  In  1819 
is  is  estimated  that  one-fourth  of  the  communicants  of 
the  Presbyterian  churches  of  Charleston  were  colored.! 

fSlave  Population  of  S.  C.  (in  its  religious  aspect),  1823. 

*Dalcho:     Church  History,  p.  43. 

§These  figures  are  taken  from  Jones:  Religious  Instruction  of  Slaves, 
pp.  53,  65,  57,  60.  The  authority  he  quotes  for  the  figures  for  the 
Presbyterian  Churches  of  Charleston  is  the  Report  of  the  Board 
of  Managers  of  the  Bible  Society  of  Charleston. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  139 

It  was  about  this  time,  1828,  that  C.  C.  Pinckney  went 
to  the  Rev.  Mr.  William  Capers  (afterwards  bishop)  and 
asked  if  he  could  secure  for  him  a  Methodist  exhorter  as 
an  overseer,  he  having  heard  that  one  such  had  been  a 
decided  success  on  a  friend's  plantation  owing  to  the  fact 
that  the  overseer  had  relied  more  upon  the  religious  motive 
than  the  lash  as  an  incentive  to  good  behavior.  Capers 
was  not  slow  to  see  the  opportunity  and  while  he  was  not 
in  a  position  to  supply  him  with  such  an  overseer,  he  offered 
to  send  a  "missionary"  to  preach  to  the  slaves  on  his 
plantation,  to  which  Pinckney  readily  assented.*  Such 
is  the  well  authenticated  story  connected  with  the  founding 
of  the  Methodist  missions  to  the  slaves  in  South  Carolina 
in  1828,  of  which  Capers  became  the  first  superintendent. 

We  shall  have  to  drop  the  incidents  of  the  work  begun 
and  carried  forward  by  the  denominations,  though  interest 
ing,  to  study  the  complications  to  which  it  in  part  gave 
rise. 

Soon  after  this  promising  beginning  in  efforts  to  improve 
the  colored  race  began  the  publication  of  abolitionist  lit 
erature  in  the  North  and  the  terrible  Nat  Turner  insur 
rection  in  Virginia.  This  halted  all  benevolent  movements 
for  the  betterment  of  the  negroes'  status.  It  is  clearly 
put  by  Rev.  C.  C.  Jones,  a  Presbyterian  minister,  who  had 
devoted  his  life  to  work  for  the  negro  in  Georgia  :f 

"The  very  foundations  of  society  were  assailed  and 
men  went  forth  to  the  defense.  A  tenderness  was 
begotten  in  the  public  mind  on  the  whole  subject, 
and  every  movement  touching  the  improvement  of 
the  negroes  was  watched  with  jealousy. 

It  was  considered  best  to  disband  schools  and  dis 
continue  meetings  at  least  for  a  season;  the  formation 
of  societies  and  the  action  of  ecclesiastical  bodies 
in  some  degree  ceased. 

*Wightman:  Biography  of  Capers,  p.  121;  Shipp:  History  of 
Methodism  in  South  Carolina,  p.  449. 

t  Religious  Instruction  of  the  Negroes,  p.  97. 


140  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

"The  feelings  of  men  being  excited§  those  who 
had  undertaken  the  religious  instruction  of  the  negroes 
were  looked  upon  with  suspicion  and  some  of  them 
were  obliged  to  quit  the  field.  It  was  not  considered 
that  a  separation  could  be  made  between  the  religious 
and  civil  condition  of  the  people;  and  that  a  minister 
could  confine  himself  to  the  one  without  interfering 
at  all  with  the  other." 

But  not  all  hope  was  given  up  by  benevolently  disposed 
whites  after  the  excitement  had  quieted  down.  There 
is  in  the  Charleston  Library  a  pamphlet  publishing  the  pro 
ceedings  in  part  of  a  meeting  called  to  assemble  in  Charles 
ton  May  13-15,  1845,  to  discuss  and  plan  for  a*  more  intel 
ligent  and  systematic  religious  instruction  of  the  slave 
population.  It  was  promoted  apparently  by  the  Episco 
palian  churches,  chiefly  those  of  Charleston,  while  the  other 
denominations  contributed  their  part  to  the  movement. 
A  series  of  letters  had  been  sent  out  to  a  number  of  ministers 
and  planters  in  all  parts  of  the  state  making  inquiry  as 
to  the  present  status  of  the  religious  instruction  of  the 
negroes,  as  to  how  often  meetings  were  held  for  them,  and 
if  these  were  conducted  by  negroes  solely.  Other  questions 
were  asked,  but  these  indicate  the  phase  of  the  subject 
in  which  we  are  interested.  The  replies  form  the  more 
interesting  part  of  the  pamphlet,  showing  religious  con 
ditions  and  the  customs  among  the  negroes  to  be  very 
much  as  they  have  been  described  above.  It  seems  that 
the  difficulties  that  would  attend  any  modification  of  the 
law  so  as  to  allow  more  liberty  for  religious  meetings  of 
the  negroes  remained  unsolved  and  the  meeting  adjourned 
without  being  able  to  arrive  at  any  satisfactory  conclusion 
along  this  line. 

One  point  brought  out  clearly  in  the  replies  is  that  the 
services  of  the  negro  preachers  to  their  own  race  were 
considered  inexpedient.  In  some  instances  the  colored 
preachers  were  commended  but  in  most  they  were  con 
demned  as  being  ignorant  and  incapable  of  giving  intel 
ligent  instruction  even  if  they  did  not  teach  ideas  sub 
versive  of  the  established  order  of  things.  Russell,  in  his 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  141 

Diary,*  quotes  a  white  man  in  Georgetown  as  saying  that 
these  negro  preachers  "do  the  niggers  no  good — they  talk 
about  things  going  on  elsewhere  and  get  their  minds  un 
settled  and  so  on."  The  report  of  a  committee  appointed 
by  the  South  Carolina  Agricultural  Society  to  investigate 
the  religious  instruction  of  the  slave  recommends  against 
allowing  negroes  to  preach. f  Some  whites  even  objected 
to  the  negro  "watchman,"  whose  duty  it  was  to  look  after 
the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  slaves  associated  with  him, 
because,  they  claimed,  it  gave  them  undue  prominence 
and  undue  self  conceit  as  a  result. 

While  the  negro  preacher  was  tolerated  and  probably 
accomplished  much  good  in  many  instances,  it  was  the 
possibility  of  the  harm  he  might  do  that  disturbed  the 
whites.  The  religious  meeting  composed  solely  of  blacks 
was  looked  upon  with  more  decided  disfavor  and  was  prob 
ably  rare.  Here  are  some  characteristic  remarks  about 
such  a  meeting  in  Charleston  in  1816:§ 

"Almost  every  night  there  is  a  meeting  of  these 
noisy,  frantic  worshippers.  .  .  .  Midnight!  Is 
that  the  season  for  religious  convocation?  Even 
allowing  that  these  meetings  were  conducted  with 
propriety,  is  that  the  accepted  time?  That  the  meet 
ing  of  numerous  black  people  to  hear  the  scripture 
expounded  by  an  ignorant  and  (too  frequently)  vicious 
person  of  their  own  color  can  be  of  no  benefit  either 
to  themselves  or  the  community  is  certain;  that  it 
may  be  attended  with  many  evils  is,  I  presume, 
obvious  to  every  reflecting  mind." 

It  had  always  been  the  separate  meeting  of  blacks 
under*|  their  own  management  that  had  aroused  most 
suspicion  in  the  mind  of  the  public.  Jervey,  in  his  "Life 
and  Times  of  Robert  Y.  Hayne,"  mentions  two  such  meet 
ings.  At  one  in  1817  four  hundred  and  sixty-nine  negroes 
were  arrested  in  Charleston  for  holding  a  meeting  in  a  house 

*My  Diary  North  and  South,  p.  60. 

WeBow's  Review,  XXVI,  107. 

§H.  F.  F.,  in  The  Times  (Charleston)  July  17,  1816. 


142  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

and  on  a  lot  owned  by  the  negroes,  f  The  other  is  quoted 
from  the  Charleston  Courier  of  June  9,  1818.  It  is  important 
enough  to  be  quoted  in  full:§ 

"One  hundred  and  forty  free  Negroes  and  Slaves, 
belonging  to  the  African  church,  were  taken  up  on 
Sunday  afternoon  by  the  City  Guard  and  lodged  in 
the  guard-house.  The  city  council  yesterday  morning 
sentenced  five  of  them,  consisting  of  a  Bishop  and 
four  ministers,  to  one  month's  imprisonment,  or  to 
give  security  to  leave  the  state.  Eight  other  ministers 
were  also  sentenced  separately  to  receive  ten  lashes 
or  pay  a  fine  each  of  ten  dollars." 

On  the  other  hand  it  will  be  interesting  to  note  that  it  was 
the  official  policy  of  at  least  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to  have  their  ministers  hold  separate  meetings  for 
the  negroes,  but  this  was  different  from  the  negroes  conduct 
ing  their  own  meeting.*  James  L.  Pettigru  is  quoted  as 
saying  in  a  speech  at  the  meeting  on  the  Religious  Instruc 
tion  of  the  Negroes  that  the  sentiment  for  separate  meet 
ings  for  the  negroes  was  growing. 

Certain  free  negroes  of  Charleston  petitioned  the  legis 
lature  in  1820  to  be  permitted  to  conduct  their  own  worship 
independently  at  Hampstead,  their  church  having  been 
already  erected.  The  matter  was  referred  to  the  Charleston 
delegation  in  the  general  assembly,  who  recommended 
unfavorable  action  upon  the  petition. ft 

It  was  brought  out  at  the  Vesey  trial  that  it  was  at  an 
"African  congregation  [which]  was  not  only  composed  of 
colored  persons  but  their  minister  was  also  colored"  that 
the  details  of  the  plot  were  worked  out.** 

fP.  75. 

§By  a  slip  Mr.  Jervey  makes  it  read  143  instead  of  140,  p.  79. 

*Mallard:  Plantation  Life  Before  Emancipation,  p.  159,  quotes  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery  at  Barnwell  in  1817. 

^Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  5,   1820;  Southern  Patriot,  Dec.  5,   1820. 

"Ordered  for  consideration  on  Monday"  appears  in  the  newspaper 
accounts  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Legislature,  but  a  patient  search 
of  the  available  files  of  papers  covering  the  period  of  the  session  of 
the  Legislature  revealed  no  further  mention  of  the  matter. 

**Kennedy  and  Parker,  Negro  Plot,  p.  23. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  143 

Sometime  prior  to  1850  there  was  a  church  in  Charleston 
for  negro  worship  called  Calvary,  founded  under  the 
direction  and  authority  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  South  Carolina,  probably  because^there  was  no  adequate 
accommodation  for  them  in  the  churches  for  white  people.* 
This  colored  congregation  seems  to  have  aroused  some 
question  in  the  people's  minds  as  to  the  expediency  and 
lawfulness  of  such  a  venture.  Such  was  the  feeling  that 
a  public  meeting  was  held,  over  which  the  mayor  presided, 
to  inquire  into  the  matter.  Committees  were  appointed 
to  investigate:  (1)  What  measures  for  the  religious  in 
struction  of  negroes  were  used  in  Charleston  and  with 
what  results,  good  or  bad — if  bad,  how  could  they  be 
remedied ;  (2)  All  the  material  facts  bearing  on  the  particu 
lar  case  of  Calvary  church;  (3)  What  the  laws  governing 
such  a  case  are,  and  is  the  enactment  of  other  laws  desirable? 
The  important  points  brought  out  by  the  inquiry  were  that 
the  church  was  organized  by  the  Episcopal  Church,  for 
there  was  not  sufficient  accommodation  for  the  people  of 
color  as  was  the  case  in  many  other  places.  The  church 
had  been  placed  under  a  regularly  authorized  minister 
of  that  denomination;  the  teaching  was  oral.  There  was 
a  place  set  apart  for  whites  who  might  care  to  attend 
either  for  precaution  as  to, the  movements  of  the  negroes 
or  for  any  other  reason.  There  were  found  to  exist  "bands" 
among  the  negroes  the  purpose  of  which  was  to  relieve  the 
sick  and  assist  in  the  expenses  incurred  in  the  burial  of 
their  dead.  The  burial  society  was  a  sort  of  fraternal 
necessity  for  free  negroes  and  slaves  in  the  towns  who  were 
allowed  to  hire  their  time  and  act  in  a  large  measure  as 
free.  But  the  very  name  and  the  possibilities  suggested 
by  its  nature  would  arouse  suspicion.  The  Reverend 
Whiteford  Smith,  of  the  Methodist  Church,  who  partici 
pated  in  the  meeting,  came  to  the  defense  of  the  "bands," 
attesting  their  benevolent  character.  No  furtherfdefinite 
action  as  to  the  Calvary  church  appears  to  have  been  taken. 

Negro  funerals']  were   almost   always  held  at  night,   in 

*Published  Proceedings  Relating  to  Calvary  Church  and  Instruction 
of  Slaves,  1850;  in  S.  C.  Hist,  Soc.  Collection. 


144  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

order  probably  to  accommodate  slaves  who  could  at  this 
time  only  have  opportunity  to  attend  them.  An  ordi 
nance  of  the  city  of  Charleston  in  1789f  prohibiting  the 
meeting  at  a  free  negro's  house  of  more  than  seven  slaves 
made  an  exception  in  the  case  of  funerals,  with  a  view 
apparently  of  encouraging  the  custom.  A  rather  weird 
sight  must  have  been  this  racially  superstitious  people 
carrying  torches  with  the  corpse,  and  the  laying  to  rest 
one  of  their  number  often  with  more  or  less  curious  cere 
monies.  Probably  the  whites,  trusting  to  the  semi-bar 
barous  superstition  of  the  negroes  being  awed  by  the 
presence  of  death,  allowed  these  funerals,  thinking  of  no 
possible  harm  to  come  from  them.  But  if  we  are  to  be 
lieve  the  account  of  a  "Taxable  Citizen  of  Ward  Four," 
who  writes  to  the  Southern  Patriot  of  September  19,  1835, 
even  these  funerals  are  fraught  with  danger  and  are  some 
thing  more  than  solemn: 

"There  are  sometimes  every  evening  in  the  week 
funerals  of  negroes  accompanied  by  three  or  four  hun 
dred  negroes  and  a  tumultuous  crowd  of  other  slaves 
who  disturb  all  the  other  inhabitants  in  the  neigh 
borhood  of  burying  grounds  in  Pitt  street  near  Bound 
ary  street.  It  appears  to  be  a  jubilee  for  every 
slave  in  the  city.  They  are  seen  eagerly  pressing  to 
the  place  from  all  quarters,  and  such  is  frequently  the 
crowd  and  noise  made  by  them  that  carriages  cannot 
safely  be  driven  that  way.  .  .  .  Let  it  be  re 
membered  too  that  the  officiating  priests  are  black 
men." 

The  article  recommends  that  attendance  at  negro  funerals 
be  limited  by  ordinance  to  fifteen  or  twenty  composed  only 
of  relatives  of  the  deceased  and  that  the  guard  be  instructed 
to  take  up  all  hangers-on. 

It  appears  that  at  times,  after  proper  precautions  had 
been  taken,  some  social  privileges  were^ allowed  the  slaves 
by  their  masters.  The  celebrations  of  weddings  were 
not  unusual  things.  Even  dances  were  doubtless  per 
mitted.  But  the  more  common  form  of  social  privilege 

fCharleston  Ordinances,  p,  180. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  145 

allowed  was  in  the  nature  of  bringing  the  slaves  together 
and  under  the  glow  of  the  hilarity  that  comes  of  social 
contact  they  were  set  to  light  tasks.  Log  rolling,  when  a 
neighbor  invites  the  slaves  of  other  owners  in  the  com 
munity  to  assemble  at  a  not  very  busy  season  to  assist 
in  getting  off  the  newly  cleared  land  the  timber  and  debris, 
was  one  of  these  occasions.  Feats  and  contests  of  strength 
afforded  merriment.  A  dinner,  plentiful  if  not  elaborate, 
crowned  the  event.  "Corn  shuckings"  to  which  all  the 
slaves  in  the  community  were  invited  were  common,  even 
weekly  occurrences  in  the  harvesting  time.  After  the  corn 
was  all  husked  supper  would  be  served ;  sometimes  whiskey 
too,  in  the  yard  by  the  light  of  the  moon,  and  various 
matches  as  wrestling  were  engaged  in,  and  the  negro 
melodies  resounded,  after  which  the  crowd  broke  up  and 
went  home,  refreshed  by  the  outlet  afforded  their  spirits. 
The  slaveowners  and  whites  generally  did  not  object 
to  the  slave  attending  religious  services  or  having  the  privi 
lege  of  some  social  enjoyment.  It  was  the  constant  danger 
they  felt,  perhaps  often  exaggerated,  of  the  meetings 
being  made  the  occasion  of  insurrectionary  activity.  This 
is  the  reason  for  the  acts  of  1800  and  1839*  expressly  pro 
hibiting  such  meetings,  which  if  they  had  been  rigidly  ob 
served  and  enforced  would  well  nigh  have  cut  of!  all  op 
portunity  of  the  negroes  to  meet  together  for  any  pur 
pose.  Booker  Washington  thinks  that  the  restrictions  ob 
tained  were  sufficient  to  prevent  the  financial  progress  of 
the  free  negroes  in  the  state,  and  had  there  not  been  such 
restrictions  on  their  co-operation  facilitated  by  meetings 
held  by  them  in  their  interest  they  would  have  been  further 
advanced  in  1861  than  they  were.f  The  patrol  was  given 
the  authority  to  interfere  in  these  meetings.  And,  not 
withstanding  the  tendency  which  existed,  of  giving  the 
patrol  large  discretionary  powers,  we  see  how  that  in  1818 
the  patrol  was  rebuked  by  the  highest  court  for  inter 
ference  in  a  religious  meeting. 

'Statutes  at  Large,  XI,  64. 
tOutlook,  93,  113,  Sept.  18,  1909. 


146  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

Another  case,  the  State  vs.  Boozer  et  al.,f  from  New- 
berry  district,  came  up  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  from  the 
lower  court  in  1850.  This  decision  puts  a  liberal  interpre 
tation  on  the  law  regarding  innocent  meetings  of  negroes 
for  other  than  religious  edification.  The  main  facts  are, 
that  not  far  from  what  is  now  Prosperity  a  slave  woman 
secured  the  consent  of  her  master  to  hold  a  "quilting," 
to  invite  other  slaves  and  to  use  the  master's  kitchen  for 
the  purpose.  Less  than  a  dozen  slaves,  a  majority  being 
women,  were  present  with  written  passes  from  their  masters. 
Everything  was  orderly  and  went  well  until  after  the  master, 
in  whose  kitchen  the  meeting  took  place,  had  retired. 
About  eleven  o'clock  he  was  aroused  by  a  disturbance, 
caused  by  the  presence  of  the  patrol.  The  captain  of 
the  patrol  was  remonstrated  with  by  the  master  all  to  no 
purpose.  The  master  was  ordered  to  summon  all  his 
slaves  from  the  kitchen  while  the  others  were  whipped  by 
the  patrol  although  they  produced  their  passes.  The 
owners  of  some  of  the  visiting  slaves  decided  to  test  the 
matter  in  the  courts.  The  patrol  was  prosecuted  and 
fined  $25  in  the  sessions  court  for  ' 'unlawfully  whipping 
slaves."  The  patrol  appealed  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
a  meeting  of  negroes  after  9  p.  m.  and  that  there  were  no 
whites  present  except  the  resident  master  and  his  family 
who  were  asleep  in  the  dwelling  house  some  distance  away. 
It  was  clear  that  the  patrol  had  from  the  letter  of  the  law 
a  good  defense.  But  the  court  took  the  opposite  view  and 
confirmed  the  lower  court  in  the  conviction  of  the  patrol. 
Justice  Withers,  in  giving  the  opinion  of  the  court,  has  but 
little  to  say  of  the  law  in  the  case  and  bases  his  decision 
more  on  expediency  and  the  general  principles  of  a  generous 
humanity  and  the  implied  purpose  of  the  slave  code.  In 
deed  the  way  in  which  the  letter  of  the  law  is  evaded  is 
rather  remarkable,  but  it  was  not  unusual  in  this  highest 
tribunal  to  take  such  liberal  views  on  the  interpretation 
of  the  slave  law  even  to  such  an  extent  that  the  judges 
were  criticised  for  it.  The  court  was  careful  to  say  that 
had  there  been  reasonable  suspicion  that  the  meeting  was 

t5  Strobhart  (Law),  21, 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  147 

of  a  disturbing  or  disorderly  kind  the  patrol  would  have 
been  upheld  completely.  But  the  presumption  was  all 
the  other  way.  The  court  says  in  part: 

"The  slaves  who  were  whipped  were  on  the  premises 
of  a  citizen,  himself  a  slaveowner,  by  his  consent, 
and  with  tickets  from  their  masters.  The  occasion 
was  a  perfectly  innocent  one,  even  meritorious;  for 
Hunter's  negro  women  had  obtained  his  permission 
to  call  in  the  assistance  toward  the  construction  of  a 
quilt  for  her  bed,  or  some  bed;  and  it  is  to  be  hoped 
that  no  master  in  the  state  would  have  denied  such 
an  indulgence,  when  he  had  no  motive  to  suspect 
that  it  was  contrived  to  cover  up  some  evil  design. 
How  many  of  us  have  permitted  to  our  slaves  the 
enjoyment  of  a  wedding  party  and  ceremony  in 
imitation  of  the  higher  classes,  and  even  contributed 
to  the  good  cheer  of  the  occasion?  It  is  surely  no 
novelty  among  slaveowners,  that  by  consent  of  all 
parties,  one  slave  should  obtain  the  assistance  of  his 
neighbors  to  gather  his  little  crop,  even  though  it  be 
on  Saturday  night,  or  to  erect  or  improve  his  cabin. 
It  would  be  painful  to  find  that  the  law  forbids  mas 
ters  to  permit  or  encourage  the  slave  in  honoring 
the  humble  virtues  that  may  be  consistent  with  his 
condition,  whether  the  same  take  the  direction  of 
social  relations  and  intercourse  among  themselves, 
or  the  advancement  of  household  comforts.  The 
true  spirit  of  our  law  does  not  aim  at  such  an  end, 
where  the  mode  of  attaining  it  presents  no  conflict 
with  the  interests,  peace  and  security  of  the  public. 
These  must  undoubtedly  be  regarded  at  all  hazards; 
and  no  police  regulations  subserving  that  high  policy 
can  be  justly  branded  as  cruel  or  tyrannical. 

"It  would  seem  simply  ridiculous  to  suppose  that 
the  safety  of  the  State  or  any  of  its  inhabitants,  was 
implicated  in  such  an  assemblage  as  this  at  Hunter's, 
composed  of  a  few  males,  more  females;  with  tickets 
from  their  owners;  in  the  kitchen  of  a  citizen  by  his 
consent;  not  impudent  or  disorderly  by  the  ad- 


148  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

mission  of  the  defendants,  assembled  at  a  quilting 
and  no  evidence  of  a  carousal  by  eating  or  drinking. 
"Let  them  [i.  e.,  the  patrol]  exercise  with  judicious 
freedom  the  power  to  disperse  unlawful  assemblies 
as  they  are  expressly  empowered  by  ...  the 
patrol  law  to  do,  in  relation  to  slaves,  free  negroes  and 
mustizoes;  such  for  example  as  are  found  in  disorderly 
houses  .  .  .  but  a  judicious  freedom  in  the  ad 
ministration  of  our  police  laws  for  the  lower  order 
must  always  have  respect  to  the  confidence  which 
the  law  reposes  in  the  discretion  of  the  master,  the 
presence  of  the  proprietor,  his  loyalty  to  the  sym 
pathies  and  the  policy,  involves  our  common  interests, 
peace  and  safety." 


CHAPTER    XV 
Slave  Insurrections 

The  following  paragraph  will  narrate  some  instances 
of  well  known  insurrectionary  attempts  that  may  be  found 
treated  in  other  accounts  of  slavery.  However,  their 
mention  here  will  not  only  serve  to  complete  the  descrip 
tion  of  the  police  control  of  the  slaves,  but  will  at  the  same 
time  show  what  basis  there  was  for  the  great  fear  which 
the  whites  continually  felt  in  varying  degrees  of  intensity. 
It  is  the  explanation  of  the  stringency  of  some  slave  laws, 
particularly  those  just  discussed  prohibiting  meetings  of 
negroes,  sometimes  to  the  extent  of  interfering  with  re 
ligious  instruction. 

The  danger  from  insurrection  seems  to  have  been  im 
minent  from  early  times  since  almost  the  first  act  on  slavery, 
that  of  1690,  f  provided  the  death  penalty  for  an  attempt 
to  instigate  an  uprising.  As  a  precaution  the  act  of  1722* 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  346,  sec.  10, 
*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  382, 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  149 

made  it  the  duty  of  justice  of  the  peace  to  seize  any  horses 
kept  solely  by  slaves  since  they  afforded  additional  op 
portunity  for  the  carrying  on  of  insurrectionary  plots. 

The  first  plot  of  much  importance  was  the  Stono*  up 
rising  of  September  9,  1739.  The  Spanish  colony  at  St. 
Augustine,  always  hostile  to  the  South  Carolina  settlement, 
seems  to  have  encouraged  in  every  way  the  incendiary 
propensities  of  the  South  Carolina  slaves.  McCrady,f 
whose  account  is  for  the  most  part  followed  here,  says 
that  the  slaves  were  encouraged  by  emissaries  of  the 
Spanish  to  leave  their  masters  and  on  reaching  the  Spanish 
fort  were  protected  and  even  organized  into  militia  com 
panies;  and  these  facts  were  communicated  to  other  slaves 
in  Carolina  to  encourage  them  also  to  leave.  A  number 
of  negroes  finally  assembled  at  Stono,  broke  open  a  ware 
house,  killed  the  two  guards,  stole  the  arms  and  ammu 
nition,  and  proceeding  further,  killed  a  Mr.  Godfrey  and 
family  and  fired  his  house.  For  fifteen  miles  they  proceeded 
burning,  plundering  and  murdering,  compelling  all  negroes 
they  met  to  follow.  Twenty-one  white  persons  fell  victims 
to  their  barbarism?  Finding  rum  in  some  of  the  houses, 
they  imbibed  freely  with  the  result  that  they  began  to 
celebrate  with  an  orgy  of  dance  and  song.  Governor 
Bull  met  them  on  his  return  from  a  visit  to  the  outside. 
A  Mr.  Golightly  had  also  observed  them  from  a  safe  dis 
tance.  These  two  spread  the  alarm,  the  latter  pressing 
immediately  after  them  on  securing  the  assistance  of  the 
white  men  who  were  attending  worship  at  a  Presbyterian 
church,  and  who  in  obedience  to  law  had  gone  to  church 
armed.  The  militia  surrounded  the  rebellious  negroes 

*A  plot  to  capture  Charleston  by  the  negroes  in  1720  is  mentioned  by 
Schaper,  "Sectionalism  in  South  Carolina,"  p.  310.  "But  is  was  dis 
covered  and  many  of  them  taken  prisoners,  and  some  burned,  and  some 
hanged  and  some  banished." 

Another  is  mentioned  in  a  pamphlet,  "Refutations  of  Calumnies 
Against  the  Southern  and  Western  States,"  by  a  "Carolinian," 
where  a  few  negroes  had  in  1730  planned  probably  an  unsystematic  de 
predation  on  the  settlement  and  had  actually  met  at  a  "dancing  bout." 
They  were  discovered,  all  were  taken  and  the  ringleaders  executed. 

fSouth  Carolina  Under  the  Royal  Government,  1719-1776,  p.  185. 


150  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

and  captured  nearly  all  of  them.  Those  who  apparently 
had  followed  because  of  pressure  were  pardoned.  Those 
losing  their  lives  in  the  attack  and  those  of  the  negroes 
executed  amounted  to  forty-four. 

The  outbreak  brought  consternation  to  the  peaceful 
inhabitants  of  the  colony.  The  militia  patrol  to  the  south 
ward  was  strengthened.  In  1740  the  great  slave  act  was 
passed,  which  remained  the  basic  negro  law  for  the  next 
century  and  a  quarter.  It  would  not  be  surprising  then 
if  on  investigation  this  code  should  be  found  to  be  severe. 
Such  is  not  the  case,  however.  McCrady  states  that  in 
some  respects  the  condition  of  the  slaves  was  ameliorated. 
The  precautions  against  insurrection,  however,  were  rigid, 
one  section  prohibiting  beating  drums,  blowing  horns  or 
the  like  which  might  on  occasion  be  used  to  arouse  slaves 
to  insurrectionary  activity.*  A  special  act  of  the  same 
year  was  passed  quieting  any  claim  against  the  state  by 
any  owner  for  a  slave  who  had  been  put  to  death  by  exe 
cution  for  being  concerned  in  the  insurrection. 

The  City  Gazette  and  Daily  Advertiser  (Charleston)  of 
November  22,  1797,  tells  of  four  negroes  being  tried  on  the 
charge  of  conspiracy  to  fire  the  city  of  Charleston.  One 
turned  state's  evidence  against  the  others.  This  one  with 
one  of  the  others  was  sentenced  to  be  transported,  while 
the  other  two  went  to  the  scaffold.  Five  days  later  another 
was  implicated  and  hanged.  It  was  perhaps  merely  an 
isolated  case  of  a  purpose  or  possibly  a  threat  of  incendiar 
ism  and  may  not  have  been  serious  in  its  extent  and  aim. 
But  it  illustrates  the  possibilities  involved. 

Some  fear  apparently  had  come  to  be  had  of  unprincipled 
and  irresponsible  whites  who  for  any  reason  might  aid  in 
insurrectionary  movements.  The  act  of  1805  f  made  it 
treason  punishable  with  death  for  "any  person"  in  any  way 
to  aid  in  an  insurrection.  Confession  or  the  testimony 
of  two  witnesses  was  sufficient  to  convict.  Good  reason 
for  believing  that  this  was  intended  to  reach  whites  is  that 

*McCready  speaks  of  the  negroes  in  the  Stono  insurrection  as  march 
ing  "with  colors  flying  and  drums  beating." 
tStatutes  at  Large,  V,  503. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  151 

no  such  limitations  as  to  evidence  would  be  probable  in 
the  case  of  a  negro. 

The  Camden  attempt  at  insurrection  occurred  in  1816. 
The  betrayal  of  the  plot  led  the  whites  to  believe  that  it 
had  been  in  contemplation  for  a  long  time.*  The  plan 
was  to  fire  the  "powder  magazine,"  an  old  arsenal,  thus 
attracting  the  attention  of  the  white  people  to  that  part  of 
the  town  while  the  negroes  should  assemble  in  another 
quarter,  massacre  the  whites  and  burn  the  rest  of  the  town. 
They  had  apparently,  as  was  usually  the  case  except  in 
the  Vesey  instance,  nothing  further  definitely  in  view. 
The  date  for  the  attempt  was  significantly  set  for  July  4.| 
A  faithful  slave  revealed  the  plot  to  his  master  who  com 
municated  with  the  governor.  An  officer  of  the  militia 
was  detailed  to  secure  evidence  of  the  plot,  without  if 
possible  revealing  the  identity  of  the  informing  slave. 
By  a  shrewd  move  Col.  Chestnut  carried  on  a  counter  plot 
and  in  this  way  secured  the  details  of  the  original  plot. 
Seventeen  were  arrested,  seven  of  whom  were  convicted 
after  a  trial  before  a  court  consisting  of  two  magistrates 
and  five  freeholders.  Five  were  executed ;  one  was  pardoned 
after  all  the  plans  for  his  execution  had  been  completed; 
one  was  sentenced  to  one  year's  imprisonment  or  to  be 
deported  from  the  United  States. §  The  informing  slave 

*Gov.  Williams'  Annual  Message,   1816. 

fA  "Carolinian"  in  a  pamphlet,  "The  Slave  Population  of  South 
Carolina  (in  its  Religious  Aspects),"  says  fourth  of  July  orations  should 
not  be  heard  by  slaves  as  they  would  be  misled  by  addresses  on  liberty. 

§For  these  facts  the  writer  is  indebted  to  Mr.  T.  J.  Kirkland,  Esq., 
of  Camden,  who  kindly  allowed  him  to  read  the  chapter  on  the  Camden 
insurrection  from  the  manuscript  of  the  second  volume  of  his  History 
of  Camden  in  course  of  preparation  with  the  aid  of  Prof.  Kennedy. 
Mr.  Kirkland  had  access  to  files  of  the  Camden  Journal  of  1816,  which 
contained  all  the  newspaper  accounts;  he  also  was  fortunate  in  finding 
the  official  records  of  the  trial  preserved  in  the  old  courthouse  but  which 
since  the  removal  of  the  papers  to  the  new  courthouse  have  been  mis 
placed.  From  Mr.  Kirkland 's  narrative,  which  is  based  on  contempo 
rary  newspaper  accounts,  it  appears  that  the  local  municipal  authorities 
deserve  more  credit  for  dealing  with  the  participants  in  the  plot  than 
the  governor's  message  would  seem  to  indicate,  the  latter  leaving  the 
impression  that  the  chief  executive  directed  all  detective  operations. 


152  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

was  purchased  by  an  act  of  the  legislature  appropriating 
$1,100  for  the  purpose  and  giving  to  the  slave  $50  per 
annum  during  his  lifetime,  f  This  insurrectionary  effort 
seems  to  have  put  Camden  and  the  up-country  on  their 
guard,  for  the  act  of  1818  on  the  Camden  patrol  shows  an 
increased  interest  and  vigilance. 

But  the  attempt  at  insurrection  which  is  the  best  known 
as  one  of  the  more  important  plots  in  the  United  States, 
and  which  showed  more  intelligence  in  its  conception  and 
plan,  was  the  Vesey  plot  of  18.22  in  Charleston.  Denmark 
Vesey,  a  free  negro,  planned  it  in  conjunction  with  certain 
slaves,  the  more  important  of  whom  were  Gullah  Jack, 
Monday  Cell  and  Peter  Poyas.  The  plan  was  for  those 
in  the  plot  to  rise  suddenly  about  the  first  of  July,*  seize 
the  shipping,  burn  the  town,  and  then  sail  away  to  the 
West  Indies.  The  slaves  invited  to  join  were  told  that  the 
whites  were  contemplating  a  gigantic  slaughter  of  the 
negroes  because  they  had  become  too  numerous.  Every 
thing  was  apparently  in  readiness  for  some  time.  On  May 
30,  Peter,  a  faithful  slave  who  had  been  asked  to  join  the 
plot,  communicated  what  he  knew  to  his  master.  The 
city  authorities  were  apprised,  a  court  summoned,  and 
information  sought.  Arrests  were  made,  and,  to  show  the 
persistence  of  the  leaders,  even  after  some  of  those  involved 
had  been  arrested,  they  either  in  desperation  or  without 
fully  calculating  the  determination  of  the  whites  made 
efforts  to  bring  the  plot  into  execution.  But  the  greater 
part  of  them  were  intimidated.  The  special  negro  court 
of  magistrates  and  freeholders!  sat  almost  continuously 
for  nearly  a  month.  Those  first  arrested  were  placed  in 
solitary  confinement,  and  as  the  trial  proceeded  confessions 
came  out,  some  after  the  prisoners  had  been  sentenced  to  be 
hanged.  The  number  arrested  was  131,  67  of  whom  were 
convicted;  the  number  executed  was  35,  all  slaves  except 
Vesey;  the  number  deported,  32.  In  the  appendix  to  Ken- 

tStatutes  at  Large,  VI,  58. 

"June  16  had  been  fixed  upon  but  the  time  was  later  changed. 
§After  most  of  the  trials  were  finished  the  first  court  dissolved  and 
another  was  chosen.     City  Gazette,  July  31,  1822. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  153 

nedy  &  Parker's  Negro  Plot,  p.  189,  is  related  the  trial  and 
conviction  of  four  white  men  in  the  session  court  for  com 
plicity  in  the  plot.  Their  sentences  ranged  from  three  to 
twelve  months'  imprisonment  and  upon  release  they  were 
to  be  required  to  give  security  for  good  behavior  for  five 
years  in  sums  ranging  from  $100  to  $1,000.* 

The  Nat  Turner  insurrection  in  Virginia  in  1831  aroused 
the  whole  South.  Every  community  in  near  proximity 
beat  the  bushes,  as  a  local  phrase  puts  it,  to  see  if  there 
were  any  additional  plots  subsidiary  to  the  greater  one  in 
Virginia.  There  is  little  or  nothing  to  indicate  that  the 
South  Carolina  slaves  were  in  any  way  concerned.  How 
ever,  in  Laurens  district  two  slaves  were  tried  and  con 
victed  of  being  in  an  agreement  to  meet  others  and  to  join 
in  such  an  undertaking  if  the  opportunity  should  arise,  f 
The  Nashville  Republican  and  State  Gazette  of  October 
22,  1831,  copies  a  letter  from  the  Baltimore  Chronicle  to 
the  effect  that  it  was  believed  that  the  Turner  plot  was 
widespread  and  that  an  attack  on  Cheraw  had  been  planned. 
Chapman§  relates  a  reminiscence  that  at  one  time  there 
was  great  excitement  at  the  town  of  Newberry  aroused  by 
a  rumor  that  a  number  of  negroes  had  made  an  outbreak 
near  Jalapa,  seven  miles  distant,  but  it  turned  out  to  be  a 
mere  hoax.  These  are  sufficient  to  show  in  how  dangerous 
a  situation  the  people  of  the  South  believed  themselves 
to  be.  Probably,  it  is  not,  therefore,  too  much  to  say  that 
their  fears  were  exaggerated. 

The  Vesey  plot  put  everybody  to  thinking.  The  fancied 
security  of  the  whites,  if  it  existed,  had  a  rude  awaken 
ing.  Everybody  was  anxious  that  some  remedy  should 

*For  an  account  of  the  plot  see  Phillips,  "The  Slave  Labor  Problem 
in  the  Charleston  District,"  Pol.  Sci.  Quar.,  XXII,  No.  3. 

Jervey:     Life  and  Times  of  Robert  Y.  Hayne,  chap.  XII. 

The  two  comtemporary  accounts:  One  published  by  authority  of 
the  Corporation  of  Charleston,  1822,  in  pamphlet  form — "An  Account 
of  the  Late  Intended  Insurrection  among  a  portion  of  the  Blacks  of 
this  City;"  the  other  Kennedy  &  Parker,  "Negro  Plot,"  1822,  pub 
lished  by  authority  of  the  court  trying  the  negroes. 

tGov.  Hamilton's  Annual  Message,  1831. 

§Annals  of  Newberry,  p.  501. 


154  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

be  applied,  but  were  perhaps  doubtful  of  what  it  should  be. 
Citizens  of  Charleston  presented  a  memorial  to  the  legis 
lature  praying  the  expulsion  of  free  negroes  from  the  state. 
Indeed,  because  Vesey  was  free  and  because  he  was  not  a 
native  of  the  state  great  distrust  of  the  free  negroes*  arose, 
and  particularly  did  the  people  appear  to  think  that  every 
precaution  should  be  taken  to  keep  any  of  this  class  from 
coming  into  the  state.  Since  several  strengthenings  of 
the  slave  law  had  already  been  accomplished  in  the  three 
years  just  preceding — as  a  new  patrol  law  and  one  pro 
hibiting  further  manumission — the  only  direction  in  which 
further  improvements  could  be  effected  was  in  a  stricter 
enforcement  of  the  laws,  and  passing  of  the  seamen  acts.j 
But  the  extreme  precaution  taken  against  immigrant  free 
persons  of  color  in  the  seamen  act  threatened  to  cause  in 
ternational  complications.  As  Professor  Phillips  suggests, 
the  Vesey  plot  checked  any  tendency  toward  liberalism 
which  may  have  been  prevalent  at  this  time  and  made  the 
arguments  of  the  abolitionists  which  began  to  be  dis 
seminated  within  the  next  decade,  the  less  acceptable  to 
the  South. 


CHAPTER    XVI 
Abolition  and  Incendiary  Literature 

It  will  now  be  easier  to  see  why  the  South  looked  with 
hostility  upon  abolition  and  abolition  propagandists  as 
enemies  of  the  established  order  of  things.  They  regarded 
the  slave  stealer  as  a  sort  of  anarchist,  but  understood  his 
motives.  But  to  the  South  the  abolitionist  appeared  as 
a  red-handed  murderer  and  worse.  Perhaps  there  was  some 
reason  for  it,  indeed  from  their  way  of  looking  at  it  very 
good  reason.  Slavery  was  not  only  an  economic  and  in- 

*Phillips,  supra. 

fThe  act  of  1822  also  provided  the  death  penalty  for  participating 
in  an  insurrection  whether  successful  or  not. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  155 

dustrial  system,  and  as  such  felt  to  be  a  burden  by  the 
non-slaveholder;  but  more  than  that,  it  was  a  gigantic 
police  system,  which  the  poor  man  in  the  up-country  as 
well  as  the  wealthy  planter  in  the  lowlands  did  not  know 
how  to  replace.  To  put  the  negro  on  an  equality  with 
the  white  man  politically,  if  considered  at  all,  was  regarded 
as  madness.  Now  the  abolitionist  program  was  for  the 
most  part  negative — away  with  the  institution  of  slavery! 
To  the  rnind  of  Southerners  abolitionist  literature  and 
teaching  would  excite  undue  hopes  in  the  minds  of  the 
slaves.  Naturally  they  would  turn  to  assist  the  propa 
ganda  with  the  torch  and  crude  implements  of  murder  and 
torture.  It  rendered  unsafe  the  homes  and  farms  scattered 
over  the  state.  The  natural  instincts  of  social  self  pre 
servation  revolted  at  any  faith,  belief  or  movement  that 
had  as  its  final  principle  the  sudden  overturning  of  the 
established  order  of  society.  The  editor  of  the  Camden 
Journal  on  November  23,  1833,  replied  in  an  editorial  to 
the  request  of  Dennison  for  an  exchange  of  his  paper  for 
the  Emancipator  by  asking 

"if  he  would  exchange  courtesies  with  a  ruthless 
incendiary  who  should  enter  his  dwelling  at  midnight 
with    a    flaming    torch    and    fixed    determination    to 
spread  ruin  and  desolation?     Let  his  answer  be  ours." 
In   1820  a  law  was  enacted*  making  it  a  high  misde 
meanor  with  a  maximum  punishment  of  a  fine  of  $1,000 
and  imprisonment  for  a  year  for  any  white  person  to  intro 
duce  into  the  state  any  written  or  printed  matter  sub 
versive  of  the  established  order  of  things  with  reference  to 
slavery.     Any  free  negro  found  guilty  of  the  same  was  to 
pay  the  above  fine ;  for  the  second  offense  he  was  to  receive 
fifty  lashes  and  be  banished  from  the  state.     If  he  returned, 
unless  by  unavoidable  accident,  the  penalty  was  death. 
An  act  of   1823f  prohibited,  under  penalty  of  a   fine  of 
$1,000,  the  bringing  into  the  state   by  any  person  as  a  ser 
vant  any  free  negro  who  had  been  in  the  West  Indies, 
Mexico  or  South  America,  or  any  of  the  states  north  of  the 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  459. 
jStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  463. 


156  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

Potomac,  or  in  the  city  of  Washington.  The  fear  was  that 
free  negro  servants  so  travelled  would  be  dangerous  if 
brought  into  contact  with  the  slaves. 

About  1831,  at  the  time  of  the  beginning  of  the  aboli 
tionist  activity  at  the  North  and  after  a  few  of  their  papers 
had  found  their  way  to  the  South,  there  appeared  in  the 
Southern  Times  and  State  Gazette  of  October  8,  1831,  pub 
lished  at  Columbia,  the  following  significant  card: 

"$1,500  REWARD 

"The  Vigilance  Association,  composed  of  a  body  of 
gentlemen  of  the  first  respectability,  offers  a  reward 
of  Fifteen  Hundred  Dollars  for  the  apprehension  and 
prosecution  to  conviction,  of  any  white  person  who 
may  be  detected  in  distributing  or  circulating  within 
this  state,  the  newspaper  called  "The  Liberator," 
printed  in  Boston  by  Garrison  and  Knapp — or  the 
pamphlet  called  the  "Walker  Pamphlet" — or  any  other 
publication  of  a  similar  and  equally  mischievious 
and  seditious  tendency. 
Signed  by  the  authority  and  in  behalf  of  the  Association 


"Columbia,  S.  C.,  Sept.  29,  1831." 

Governor  Hamilton,  in  message  No.  2  to  the  legislature 
in  1831,  in  speaking  of  the  Southampton  insurrection,  quoted 
the  governor  of  Virginia  to  the  effect  that  these  abolition 
papers  had  probably  been  the  moving  cause  of  the  uprising. 
He  then  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  city  authorities  of 
Savannah  had  written  the  authorities  of  Boston  with  a 
view  to  having  the  publication  suppressed,  but  the  latter 
had  replied  that  they  had  no  power  to  comply.  Probably 
the  best  way  to  deal  with  the  incendiary  literature 
would  have  been  to  turn  over  to  the  federal  government 
its  control.  But  Southerners  scouted  the  idea  since  they 
feared  the  rights  of  the  state  would  be  too  much  interfered 
with. 

The  refusal  to  consider  any  plan  to  put  in  the  hands  of 
the  federal  government  the  matter  of  dealing  with  incendi- 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  157 

ary  publications  made  it  impossible  for  the  state  to  punish 
even  indirectly  those  outside  who  sent  incendiary  publi 
cations  into  the  state.  Hence  they  undertook  to  deal  in 
their  own  way  with  this  literature  after  it  was  brought  into 
the  state.  The  Charleston  Courier,  on  July  30,  1835,  re 
ferred  in  a  news  note  to  the  fact  that  a  considerable  quantity 
of  abolitionist  literature  had  been  received  at  the  Charles 
ton  postoffice  for  distribution.  The  postmaster  promised 
some  persons  interested  in  peace  and  order  not  to  distribute 
the  matter  until  the  postoffice  department  could  be  heard 
from.  But  on  the  following  night  other  persons  openly 
and  forcibly  entered  the  office  and  removed  the  objection 
able  literature.  A  citizens'  meeting  was  called  by  the  town 
council  for  the  following  Monday.  This  meeting  seems 
not  to  have  taken  into  consideration  so  much  the  lawless 
action  of  those  entering  the  postoffice — probably  regarding 
it  as  a  consequence  to  be  expected — as  removing  the  oc 
casion  for  such  actions  in  the  future.  It  appears  that 
Robert  Y.  Hayne's  influence  prevented  a  vote  of  approval 
of  the  lawless  act  of  the  mob.  By  resolution  a  committee 
of  twenty-one  was  appointed  to  take  such  action  as  was 
thought  best.  This  committee  conferred  with  the  post 
master  and  obtained  from  him  a  promise  that  no  incendiary 
literature  thereafter  received  at  the  postoffice  should  be 
distributed  until  the  city  authorities  should  be  notified 
of  its  presence;  the  committee  appointed  a  sub-committee 
to  accompany  the  next  mail  from  the  wharf  to  the  office 
to  prevent  violence.  Thus  closed  a  disagreeable  incident 
though  the  fundamental  questions  at  stake  were  far  from 
a  satisfactory  understanding.* 

As  will  appear  from  the  following  quotation  from  the 
Latirensville  Herald  of  August  24,  1849,  it  seems  that  in 
cendiary  matter  had  been  sent  through  the  upper  part  of 
the  state: 

Charleston  Courier,  July  30,  31,  Aug.  3,  4,  5,  1835. 

Pamphlet:  "Proceedings  of  the  Citizens  of  Charleston  on  the  Incen 
diary  Machinations  now  in  Progress  against  the  Peace  and  Welfare 
of  the  Southern  States." 

Jervey  (Robert  Y.  Hayne  and  His  Times,  p.  379)  publishes  a  letter  of 
the  postmaster  to  the  department  at  Washington.  Also  a  good  ac 
count  of  the  citizens'  meeting. 


158  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 


"ABOLITION   DOCUMENTS 

"These  incendiary  publications,  as  we  learn  from  the 
Pendleton  Messenger,  are  still  sent  in  large  quantities 
through  Anderson  and   Pickens    districts.     They  are 
not  distributed,  however,  but  consigned  to  the  flames 
by  the  postmasters  as  soon  as  opened.     How  much 
longer  will  our  people  submit  to  be  thus  insulted?" 
Public  attention  was  soon  given  to  the  matter  at  Pendle 
ton  resulting  in  an  incident  similar  to  that  at  Charleston. 
In  1849  a  group  of  persons  were  at   the  postoffice  receiving 
their  mail  when  one  present  was  handed  a  piece  of  un 
palatable  literature,  and  proceeded  to  read  it  for  the  edi 
fication  of  those  present.     Upon  inquiry  it  was  found  that 
there    were    thirty-eight    more    such    papers.     The    local 
vigilance    committee    already    organized    demanded    the 
objectionable    matter.     The    postmaster  refused    to  give 
it  to  any  one  except  those  to  whom  it  was  directed.     The 
newspaper  narrative f  of  the  incident  describes  it  further 
as  follows: 

'The   committee   told    him    [the    postmaster]   they 
were    determined    to    have    the    papers    peaceably    if 
they    could,    forcibly    if    they    must,    that  resistance 
would    be    in    vain.     They    then    entered    the   office, 
shoved  the  postmaster  aside  and  took  possession  of 
them  and  now  have  them  under  lock  and  key." 
No  further  notice  of  the  matter  appears  and  this  probably 
was  the  end  of  it. 

Amos  Kendall,  postmaster-general,  had  taken  a  rather 
two-sided  stand  on  slavery  literature,  to  the  effect  that  he 
had  no  power  to  prevent  transmission  of  objectionable 
matter  in  the  mails  nor  to  protect  it  from  violence.  A 
series  of  resolutions*  were  passed  by  the  legislature  of  South 
Carolina  in  December,  1835,  declaring  abolition  societies 
subversive  of  the  union,  calling  upon  non-slaveholding 

^Charleston  Courier,  Sept.  25,  1849.  Unfortunately  the  files  of  the 
Pendleton  Messenger  at  the  University  of  South  Carolina  end  with 
1848. 

*Reprinted  in  Ames:     State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations,  p.  216. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  159 

states  to  aid  in  their  suppression  and  commending  the 
attitude  of  the  federal  government  toward  the  mails. 

About  this  time  began  the  controversial  arguments  over 
the  merits  and  demerits  of  slavery,  carried  on  through 
pamphlets  and  otherwise.  They  called  forth  the  best 
intellectual  talent  of  the  South,  but  instead  of  bringing 
those  in  the  North  holding  views  different  from  those  held 
in  the  South  closer  together  it  served  further  to  separate 
them.  But  the  controversieil  side  of  slavery  does  not  come 
within  the  scope  of  this  paper. 

There  were  at  times,  particularly  after  1830,  and  during 
the  last  decade  of  the  slavery  period,  extra-legal  committees 
and  associations  organized  for  dealing  both  with  questions  of 
domestic  policy  and  with  outside  interference  with  slavery. 
In  Sumter  district,  in  1850,  there  was  organized  a  "South 
ern  Rights  Associations,"  with  a  "vigilance  committee. "f 
This  committee  was  to  watch  for  any  appearance  of  out 
side  interference  with  the  slaves,  to  report  and  prosecute 
cases  of  illegal  trafficking  or  selling  liquor  to  negroes.  A 
similar  association  and  committee  existed  in  Kershaw 
district.*  These  are  typical. 

In  1849  a  white  man  was  indicted  for  circulating  incen 
diary  papers  in  Spartanburg  district  and  held  to  trial  under 
a  bond  for  $1,000.  Counsel  complained  that  he  had  won 
considerable  unpopularity  by  taking  the  case.§  The 
papers  in  the  case  are  preserved  in  the  county  clerk  of 
court's  office  at  Spartanburg.  With  them  is  preserved 
a  pamphlet,  "An  address  to  South  Carolinians,"  by 
"Brutus,"  presumably  one  of  the  objectionable  publica 
tions,  although  it  refers  but  little  to  slavery  and  is  chiefly 
an  appeal  to  the  poor  whites  to  demand  a  larger  participa 
tion  in  public  affairs.  The  Abbeville  Banner  of  May  27, 
1858,  gives  a  news  account  of  a  meeting  held  at  that  place 
to  order  a  family  to  leave  who  were  suspected  of  inciting 
the  negroes  to  unlawful  acts.  Within  a  few  days  the  head 
of  the  family,  claiming  to  be  a  map  seller,  left  after  being 
waited  on  by  a  committee. 

}Black   River   Watchman,  Nov.  2,  1850,  and  Nov.  30. 
*Camden  Journal,  Nov.  5,  1850. 
^Charleston  Courier,  Oct.  9,  1849, 


160  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

But  a  more  general  and  systematic  effort  to  prevent 
incendiarism  came  after  the  whole  South  was  shaken  by 
the  John  Brown  raid  at  Harper's  Ferry  in  1859.  Perhaps 
the  danger  from  incendiaries  or  from  the  outside  generally 
was  greatly  exaggerated.  The  immediate  danger  was  not 
so  great  possibly  as  the  excitement  caused  by  the  raid 
would  seem  to  indicate.  This  emphasizes  the  tense  feel 
ing  caused  by  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  agitation.  Resolu 
tions  condemnatory  of  Brown  in  particular  and  of  the 
abolitionists  in  general  and  calling  for  a  finetooth-comb 
investigation  in  every  community  for  abolitionists,  by 
enthusiastic  committees,  were  adopted  by  numerous  mass 
meetings  and  sometimes  by  legally  constituted  bodies. 
Three  illustrative  instances  will  suffice.  In  Sumter  dis 
trict  resolutions  were  passed  of  which  the  following  form 
a  part,  calling  upon  the  town  council  f 

"to  institute  a  rigid  surveilance  on  all  such  transient 
persons  (stragglers  from  the  North  to  visit  and  tarry 
in  our  town  as  agents  for  books,  medicines,  etc.,  whose 
real  object  may  be  to  act  as  spies  and  abolition  emis 
saries)  and  when  full  satisfaction  is  not  given  to  notify 
such  persons  that  their  presence  in  our  community 
is  not  to  be  tolerated." 

On  Nov.  25,  1859,  a  meeting  was  held  in  Abbeville  to 
investigate  certain  suspicious  characters  in  the  community. 
As  a  result  six  white  persons  were  told  to  leave  town  who 
promised  to  comply  but  failed  to  do  so.  They  were  watched 
and  being  accused  of  holding  improper  language  to  slaves 
they  were  arrested.  At  a  subsequent  meeting  it  was  deter 
mined  to  appoint  a  vigilance  committee  to  "observe  the 
conduct  of  suspicious  persons  in  the  community  and  that 
they  endeavor  to  detect  any  illicit  traffic  with  slaves."* 
On  December  1,  1859,  the  town  council  of  Newberry  passed 
a  preamble  and  resolutions  of  which  the  following  definite 
plan  is  a  part:§ 

"Resolved  by  the  Town  Council  of  Newberry  that 

^Charleston  Mercury,  Nov.  23,  1859. 

* 'Abbeville  Banner,  Dec.  1,  1859. 

^Charleston  Mercury,  Dec.  16,  1859,  quoted  from  the  Rising  Sun. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  161 

a  Vigilance  Committee  consisting  of  five  gentlemen  be 
hereby  appointed  and  constituted,  whose  duty  it  shall 
be  to  watch  the  movements  of  strangers  coming 
within  our  midst,  and  when  they  think  proper  to  de 
mand  of  such  persons  a  reasonable  account  of  them 
selves,  and  if,  upon  examination  of  such  parties,  that 
the  said  Vigilance  Committee  be  and  the  same  are 
hereby  empowered  to  take  such  steps  in  the  premises, 
by  writs  or  otherwise,  as  they  may  deem  proper  to 
protect  the  public  interests." 

The  tense  excitement  in  the  state  continued  through  the 
following  year.  Newberry  district  appears  to  have  been 
well  organized  before  the  close  of  the  next  year  with  town 
ship  associations.  Of  these  the  one  in  Beth  Eden  township 
is  typical. f  The  purpose  of  the  meeting  was  stated  to  be, 
to  secure  organization  throughout  the  state  for  protection 
against  incendiaries.  A  committee  appointed  to  draft 
resolutions  made  its  report.  Among  the  things  recom 
mended  and  that  those  present  pledged  themselves  to, 
were:  to  enforce  strictly  patrol  riding;  not  to  give  "general 
passes;"  each  owner  to  prevent  his  slaves  from  trading; 
to  prevent  any  negro  from  preaching,  and  not  to  allow  any 
negro  meetings  for  religious  purposes  unless  twelve  white 
men  are  present;  to  deal  legally  with  negro  traders;  to  call 
upon  the  guardians  of  certain  free  negroes  (named)  that 
they  be  removed  from  the  community;  to  allow  no  hunting 
by  slaves  or  free  negroes  on  the  plantations.  Similar 
sub-associations  are  reported  from  other  townships  and  they 
passed  similar  resolutions,  large  numbers  of  slaveowners 
signing  the  paper. 

What  was  happening  in  Newberry  was  only  typical  of 
what  was  going  on  with  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  excite 
ment  in  other  parts  of  the  state.  A  pedler  from  Phila 
delphia*  was  told  to  move  on  by  the  vigilance  committee 
of  York.  A  "clean  shaven"  transient  man  at  Graham ville 
turned  out  to  be  an  abolitionist. §  The  Charleston  Courier 

fThe  Rising  Sun,  Nov.  14,  1860. 

^Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  3,  1859,  quoted  from  Yorkville  Enquirer. 
^Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  22,   1859,  quoted  from  the  Walterborough 
Sun. 


162  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

of  Dec.  22,  1859,  quotes  the  Marion  Star  for  its  authority 
that  an  Englishman  received  a  coat  of  tar  and  feathers 
in  Columbia  in  compliment  to  his  abolition  views.  Indeed, 
strangers  were  scanned  with  suspicion  it  would  often  seem. 
Northern  birth  or  residence  not  infrequently  placed  the 
burden  of  proof  of  a  wholesome  faith  in  the  Southern  insti 
tution  upon  the  person  so  unfortunate  as  to  have  had  such 
a  former  habitat. 

To  supplement  the  laws  against  incendiaries  an  act  of 
1859f  was  duly  passed  providing  for  the  imposition  of  a 
fine  in  any  amount  and  imprisonment  for  a  term  in  the 
discretion  of  the  court  for  any  person  printing,  writing, 
drawing  or  engraving  any  paper  calculated  to  incite  slaves 
to  insurrection.  On  the  release  of  such  an  offender  the 
court  was  to  have  the  power  to  require  bond  for  his  future 
good  behavior.  The  same  penalties  were  made  to  apply 
to  any  one  attempting  to  circulate  such  literature  or  sub 
scribing  for  such  literature  with  a  view  to  distributing 
it.  One  section  of  the  act  attempted  to  make  it  the  duty 
of  the  postmaster  to  notify  the  magistrate  of  any  person 
receiving  such  literature  in  their  mail — a  provision  that 
probably  was  without  force. 

The  Kingstree  incident  is  one  of  the  best  illustrations 
of  the  distrust  felt  for  the  Northern  sojourner  in  the  South. 
The  services  of  two  teachers  from  the  North  had  been 
engaged  by  persons  in  the  community.  One  of  the  teachers 
had  been  a  resident  of  the  community  for  about  two  years, 
and  the  other  for  a  shorter  period  of  time.  On  November 
2,  1859,  a  mass  meeting  was  held  in  a  country  store  in 
Boggy  Swamp,  a  few  miles  out  from  Kingstree,  the  court 
house  seat  of  Williamsburg  district,  with  a  view  to  taking 
action  with  reference  to  the  citizens  from  the  North  so 
journing  in  their  midst.  Resolutions  were  passed  that  it 
was  the  sense  of  those  present  that  the  two  young  men 
should  be  asked  to  leave  as  a  precaution  since  they  might 
prove  eventually  to  be  abolitionists.  The  newspaper 
account  of  the  proceedings  says:* 

fStatutes  at  Large,  XII,  655. 

^Charleston  Courier,  Nov.  26,  1859,  quotes  Kingstree  Star. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  163 

"Nothing  definite  is  known  of  their  abolition  or 
insurrectionary  sentiments,  but  being  from  the  North 
and  therefore  necessarily  imbued  with  doctrines  hostile 
to  our  institutions,  their  presence  in  this  section  has 
been  obnoxious  and  at  any  rate  suspicious." 
From  other  accounts  it  appears  that  they  had  received 
printed  matter  through  the  mail  on  the  wrapper  of  which 
were  strange  markings,  written  by  some  one  while  the  mail 
was  en  route,  whether  by  the  postmaster  whence  it  came 
as  a  warning  to  the  local  office  regarding  insufficient  postage 
or  as  a  warning  to  the  addressee  for  receiving  such  mail, 
was  not  clear.  At  a  second  meeting  one  of  those  present 
referred  to  the  conduct  of  certain  negroes  as  being  very 
suspicious.  Another  prominent  gentleman  took  the  ground 
"that  there  was  no  positive  proof"  against  the  teachers 
and  hence  they  ought  to  go  undisturbed.  A  committee 
of  twelve  was  appointed!  to  communicate  with  the  teachers 
and  order  them  to  leave  the  community.  More  conserva 
tive  men,  including  the  employers  of  the  teachers,  depre 
cated  summary  action,  and  the  latter  even  offered  to  de 
fend  them  against  any  violence.  Furthermore  they  claimed 
that  the  young  men  were  of  correct  habits  and  that  the 
agitation  grew  merely  out  of  prejudice  which  had  its  be 
ginning  months  before  in  an  altercation  which  one  of  the 
teachers  had  with  the  editor  of  a  local  newspaper.  On 
Saturday,  the  day  set  for  their  departure  by  the  mass  meet 
ing  at  Boggy  Swamp,  the  teachers  had  not  obeyed  the  man 
date  of  the  committee.  Another  meeting  was  held,  this 
time  in  the  town  of  Kingstree,  on  the  26th.  The  afternoon 
train  brought  a  number  of  interested  persons.*  The  con 
servative  element  was  outnumbered,  but  prudence  pre 
vailed  and  the  young  men  were  allowed  to  remain  to  finish 
their  term  of  work  for  which  they  had  engaged,  closing 
December  2  and  15  respectively.  The  committee  remained 
in  charge  and  reported  in  the  local  paper  that  they  had  seen 

fOne  of  these  is  still  living  (1911),  with  whom  the  writer  has  been  in 
correspondence. 

*How  many  cannot  be  determined.  One  account  says  one  hundred 
and  that  they  were  armed,  while  another  says  not  more  than  fifteen 
and  that  they  were  divided  in  opinion  as  to  what  was  expedient. 


164  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

one  board  the  train  the  first  of  the  month  and  without 
doubt  the  other  must  have  decided  to  spend  his  Christmas 
holidays  where  the  atmosphere  was  not  so  charged  with 
iron.* 

It  would  be  incorrect  to  imagine  from  all  that  has  been 
said  that  the  whole  state  was  swept  off  its  feet  with  excite 
ment.  In  every  community  there  was  a  conservative 
element  that  served  to  hold  the  agitation  in  check.  Every 
community,  however,  appears  to  have  had  its  fears  aroused 
and  the  excitement  in  many  parts  was  often  at  fever  heat. 


CHAPTER    XVII 
Prohibition  of  Educating  the  Negro 

After  seeing  the  situation  in  the  South  with  reference  to 
insurrections  and  the  incendiarism  of  abolition,  it  will  be 
easier  to  understand  her  attitude  toward  the  education 
of  the  negro  under  the  slavery  regime.  Most  thinking 
people  in  the  South  today  admit  that  the  gradual  education 
of  the  black  is  a  positive  good  and  that  their  fears  of  the 
effects  from  the  most  elementary  teaching  in  former  days 
was  at  least  in  large  measure  ill  founded.  On  the  other 
hand,  getting  their  ante-bellum  view  and  understanding 
their  policy — probably  lacking  in  progressive  quality, 
but  consistent — we  are  prepared  to  discuss  the  prohibition 
against  instruction  in  reading  and  writing. 

The  act  of  1740f  imposed  a  fine  of  £100  upon  any  person 
teaching  a  slave  to  write.  One  of  the  reasons  for  such  a 
prohibition  may  be  inferred  from  the  following  quotation 

*The  facts  of  the  Kingstree  incident  are  based  on  fairly  full  accounts 
given  in  the  Charleston  Courier  of  Nov.  26,  29,  Dec.  10,  22,  1859,  com 
posed  of  clippings  from  the  Kingstree  Star  and  accounts  more  or  less 
partisan  written  for  the  Courier  by  the  employers  of  the  teachers  and 
persons  interested  in  their  removal.  So  far  as  the  writer  has  been  able 
to  learn  no  files  of  the  local  paper  of  that  time  exist,  the  editor's  file 
having  been  burned  a  few  years  ago. 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  413;  sec.  45. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  165 

from  an  advertisement  of  a  runaway  in  the  City  Gazette 
of  July  11,  1805.  The  fact  which  it  illustrates  is  appli 
cable  to  slavery  of  any  period  of  South  Carolina  history. 

"He  [i.  e.,  the  runaway  slave]  is  a  tolerable  good 
reader  and  writer;  it  is  likely  he  will  change  his  name, 
write  himself  a  pass,  and  pass  for  a  free  man."* 
Written  permits  to  trade  or  for  whiskey  could  very  easily 
be  used  in  the  same  way.  It  also  made  communication 
for  insurrectionary  purposes  easy.  Two  negroes,  who 
were  brothers  concerned  in  the  Camden  plot  of  1816, 
it  was  shown  could  read  and  write,  f  This  prohibition 
seems  tacitly  to  have  been  understood  as  not  to  apply  to 
any  master  who  desired  his  slaves  to  be  taught — he  being 
held  apparently  morally  responsible  by  the  community 
for  the  consequences — and  at  any  rate  they  might  be  taught 
to  read  and  taught  such  religious  principles  as  should  be 
thought  desirable  and  necessary. §  McCrady*  mentions 
the  existence  of  a  negro  school,  near  Charleston,  where, 
through  the  efforts  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of 
the  Gospel,  a  plantation  was  secured  and  slaves  were  bought 
for  the  purpose  of  being  taught,  chiefly  religious  training, 
with  a  view  of  sending  them  out  as  missionaries  to  other 
plantations.  The  school,  beginning  about  1743,  enrolled 
at  one  time  as  many  as  seventy  pupils.  For  about  twenty- 
years  it  was  continued,  but  the  lack  of  funds  and  probably 

*An  old  negro  of  the  writer's  acquaintance  boasts  that  he  wrote 
passes  not  only  for  himself  but  for  other  slaves.  The  fact  that 
scarcely  one  out  of  ten  passes  probably  was  ever  called  for 
by  the  holder's  coming  in  contact  with  the  patrol  lends  credence  to  the 
statement. 

fPamphlet,  Refutations  of  Calumnies  against  Southern  and  Western 
States,  p.  76.  The  same  pamphlet,  written  probably  by  Thos.  Pinckney, 
also  states  the  indulgence  allowed  slaves  to  read  and  write  as  one  of 
the  causes  of  the  Vesey  plot. 

§Ed.  R.  Laurens  said  in  an  address  before  the  Agricultural  Society 
of  South  Carolina  in  1832,  that  if  the  slaves  must  be  taught  it  should 
be  done  by  a  member  of  the  master's  family.  Pamphlet  address, 
Charleston  Library. 

jSouth  Carolina  Under  the  Royal  Government,  p.  247. 


166  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

the  lack  of  the  support  of  the  community  caused  its  dis 
continuance.! 

As  time  went  on  the  prohibition  of  instruction  in 
writing  was  the  only  legal  expression  against  negro  edu 
cation  until  1834.  Prior  even  to  this,  however,  some  doubt 
had  been  expressed  as  to  the  advisability  of  allowing  them 
to  be  taught  to  read.  Mention  has  already  been  made  of 
the  fact  that  some  negroes  concerned  in  the  Camden  and 
Charleston  attempted  uprisings  could  read  and  write. 
The  Sumter  grand  jury  in  its  presentment  in  1829  took  the 
following  notice  of  it:* 

"The  Grand  Jury  of  Sumter  District  represent  as 
a  grievance  of  no  inconsiderable  degree,  the  liberty 
which  is  allowed  to  owners  of  teaching  their  slaves  to 
read,  a  practice  which  if  generally  encouraged  will 
lead  to  consequences  of  the  most  serious  and  alarming 
nature." 

Hon.  Ed.  R.  Laurens,  in  another  address  before  the  Agri 
cultural  Society  of  South  Carolina  in  1832,  complains  that 
religious  pressure  is  being  brought  too  much  to  bear  to 
educate  slaves  and  adds  that  the  law  against  slaves  learn 
ing  to  write  is  a  dead  letter,  for  they  are  still  permitted  to 
learn  to  read. 

The  activity  of  the  abolition  agitation  in  the  early  thirties 
called  forth  probably  the  law  of  1834§  which  forbade  any 
white  person  on  a  penalty  of  a  fine  of  $100  and  six  months' 
imprisonment  to  teach  any  slave  to  read  or  write.  A  free 
negro  who  should  violate  the  provisions  of  the  act  was  to 
be  fined  $50  and  to  receive  fifty  lashes.  The  slave  who 
would  undertake  to  teach  slaves,  not  being  capable  of 
being  reached  by  a  fine,  received  the  lashes.  The  reason 
for  this  attitude  of  the  South  is  tritely  and  squarely  put 
by  Toombs,  of  Georgia  :j 

fjones:  Religious  Instruction  of  the  Slaves,  p.  38;  Dalcho:  Church 
History,  pp.  148-158,  192. 

*MS.  records  County  Clerk's  office,  Sumter  County. 
IStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  468. 
$DeBow's  Review,  XX,  600. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  167 

"It  is  also  objected  that  our  slaves  are  debarred  the 
benefit  of  any  education.  This  objection  is  well 
taken  and  not  without  force ;  and  for  the  evil  the  slaves 
are  greatly  indebted  to  the  abolitionists.  Formerly 
in  some  of  the  slaveholding  states  it  was  not  forbidden 
to  teach  slaves  to  read  and  write;  but  the  character 
of  the  literature  sought  to  be  furnished  by  the  abo 
litionists  caused  the  states  to  take  counsel  rather  of 
their  passions  than  of  their  reason,  and  to  lay  the 
axe  at  the  root  of  the  evil." 

The  act  of  1834  applied  only  to  slaves.  There  seems  to 
have  been  some  effort  to  make  a  similar  regulation  for  the 
free  negroes  or  at  least  to  prohibit  negro  schools,  of  which 
there  must  have  been  some  at  the  time,  as  appears  from  a 
Charleston  grand  jury  presentment  in  1823 :f 

"We  present  as  a  grievance  the  number  of  schools 
which  are  kept  in  the  city  by  persons  of  color,  and 
believe  that  a  City  Ordinance  prohibiting,  under  severe 
penalties,  such  persons  from  being  public  instructors 
would  meet  with  general  approbation." 
A    more   liberal    policy,    which   characterized   certainly   a 
respectable  minority  of  the  whites,  is  to  be  seen  from  the 
following  editorial  utterance  in  the  Charleston  Courier  of 
Dec.  9,  1835: 

"The  plan  of  prohibiting  [i.  e.,  by  legislation — bilk 
pending  at  the  time]  schools  for  free  colored  people 
strikes  us  as  both  unwise  and  inefficient.  If  public 
schools  be  prohibited  the  march  of  mind  will  yet  pro 
gress  under  the  domestic  roof,  and  the  effort  to  arrest 
it  will  prove  worse  than  futile.  Let  these  schools 
be  rather  regulated  than  prohibited  and  good  may 
possibly  be  done — prohibit  them  and  that  will  be  done 
in  secrecy  which  would  not  otherwise  shun  the  light." 

^Charleston  Courier,  June  31,  1823. 


168  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

CHAPTER    XVII  I 
Manumission 

Until  1800  there  was  no  restriction  whatever  placed  by 
law  upon  the  granting  of  freedom  by  a  master  to  a  slave 
as  he  might  deem  desirable  or  proper.*  It  seems  to  have 
been  regarded  as  a  matter  merely  of  individual  preference. 
There  had  been,  it  is  true,  a  colonial  law  as  far  back  as 
I722f  requiring  all  owners  who  should  set  free  any  slave 
to  provide  for  their  departure  from  the  province.  But 
this  act  expired  after  a  limited  time  as  was  the  custom 
with  colonial  statutes  and  was  not  re-enacted.  There 
were  instances  of  slaves  being  freed  by  the  colonial  assembly 
as  a  reward  for  meritorious  conduct.; 

The  considerations  that  led  to  the  imposing  of  restric 
tions  is  stated  in  the  preamble  to  the  act  of  1800  as  follows:! 
"Whereas  it  has  happened  that  many  slaves  of  bad  char 
acter  or  indigent  or  infirm  have  been  set  free."  ft  The  act 
then  went  on  to  provide  that  any  master  desirous  of  manu 
mitting  any  slave  should  appear  with  the  slave  before  a 
magistate  and  five  freeholders,  summoned  by  the  magistrate 
for  that  purpose,  prepared  to  answer  all  questions  as  to 
the  slave's  ability  to  earn  his  own  living  and  as  to  his  char 
acter.  If  the  magistrates  and  freeholders  should  deem  it 
advisable  they  might  issue  a  certificate  permitting  the 

*2  Bailey  (Law),  137:  Linam  vs.  Johnson;  decided  in  1831. 

fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  384. 

JA  few  may  be  mentioned  as  follows:  Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  419; 
IV,  545;  V,  481. 

§Hammond:     Cotton  Industry,  p.  41;  Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  442. 

Bills  to  this  effect  had  been  introduced  the  year  before. 

City  Gazette  and  Daily  Advertiser,  Dec.  4,  1799. 

t  fO' Neall( Annals  of  Newberry,  p.  47)  mentions  the  case  of  a  Cove 
nanter  who  set  his  slaves  free,  but  owing  to  their  lack  of  thrift  gathered 
them  back  again  as  slaves.  This  was  probably  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  last  century.  The  Covenanters,  like  the  Quakers,  are  said  to  have 
disliked  slavery  and  to  have  abstained  from  it.  The  writer's  paternal 
grandfather  was  a  Covenanter  and  refused  to  hold  slaves  until  late 
in  life  when  he  purchased  a  household  servant. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  169 

emancipation.  This  certificate  was  to  be  recorded  by  the 
clerk  of  court  together  with  the  deed  of  emancipation,  a 
copy  of  which  was  to  be  made  out  by  the  clerk  and  given  to 
the  negro  set  free.  Under  this  act  any  person  might  seize 
a  negro  set  free  thereafter  in  any  other  way,  exception 
being  made  of  those  to  whom  a  bequest  of  freedom  had  been 
previously  made,  and  might  appropriate  the  services  of 
such  negro  to  his  own  use.  In  1831  a  case  was  heard  by 
the  Court  of  Appeals*  involving  the  right  of  a  negro  to 
freedom,  who  had  been  allowed  to  act  as  a  free  man  living 
on  a  farm  to  himself  as  early  as  1800.  The  negro  had  been 
seized  by  an  outsider  under  the  provisions  of  this  act. 
While  the  court  did  not  confirm  the  title  apparently  ac 
quired  by  the  seizure  it  did  declare  that  the  negro  was  not 
a  free  man. 

But  emancipation  came  to  involve  further  difficulties. 
There  was  a  general  feeling  in  the  South  that  the  free  negro 
in  large  numbers,  unrestricted  by  the  restraining  and  con 
trolling  authority  provided  for  in  the  slavery  system,  would 
be  a  great  evil,  a  menace  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the 
community.  Wheeler,  in  his  Law  of  Slavery,^  has  the  fol 
lowing  note  explanatory  of  the  reasons  for  restraining 
emancipation : 

"When  it  is  considered  that  slaves  are  a  peculiar 
species  of  property,  it  will  not  excite  surprise  that 
laws  are  necessary  for  their  regulation  and  to  protect 
society  from  even  the  benevolence  of  slaveowners, 
in  throwing  among  the  community  a  great  number  of 
stupid,  ignorant,  and  vicious  persons,  to  disturb  its 
peace  and  to  endanger  its  permanency. 

"The  right  of  society  to  regulate  and  control  the 
ownership  of  this  kind  of  property  may  be  justified 
on  the  same  grounds  as  some  other  species  of  property. 
No  one  can  doubt  the  right  of  individuals  to  acquire, 
possess  and  sell  gunpowder,  but  if  the  possessor  chooses 
to  take  it  to  his  house  or  store,  in  a  city  or  populous 

*2  Bailey  (Law),  137:  Linam  vs.  Johnson. 
tP.  387. 


170  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

town,  the  public  becomes  interested  and  will  restrain 
him  within  reasonable  and  proper  limits." 
Governor  McDuffie  expressed  the  feeling  of  his  time  in  his 
annual  message  of  1835,  using  the  following  language: 

"Emancipation  would  be  a  positive  curse,  depriving 
them  of  a  guardianship  essential  to  their  happiness. 
If  emancipated  where  would  they  live?     The 
idea  of  their  remaining  among  us  is  utterly  visionary. 
.     .     .     The   only   disposition,   therefore,   that   could 
be  made  of  our  emancipated  slaves  would  be  their  trans 
portation  to  Africa,  to  exterminate  the  native  or  be 
exterminated  by  them.     .     .     .     It  is  perfectly  evi 
dent  that  the  destiny  of  the  negro  race  is  either  the 
worst  possible  form  of  political  slavery,  or  domestic 
servitude  as  it  exists  in  the  slaveholding  states." 
It  would  seem  that  this  opinion  of  the  prospective  menace 
from  the  presence  of  the  freed  negroes  in  any  very  consid 
erable  numbers  became  more  acute  as  time  passed.     The 
extreme  picture  of  it  is  drawn  by  Hon.  John  Townsend  in  a 
speech  at  Charleston  in  I860:* 

"It  means  again  the  turning  loose  upon  society 
without  the  salutary  restraints  to  which  they  are  now 
accustomed  more  than  four  millions  of  a  poor  and  very 
ignorant  population  to  ramble  in  idleness  over  the 
country  until  their  wants  should  drive  most  of  them 
first  to  petty  thefts  and  afterwards  to  the  bolder  crime 
of  robbery  and  murder;  or  until  their  excesses,  their 
impudence,  their  filth  and  starvation  shall  bring 
pestilence  among  them  and  sweep  them  off  by  thous 
ands.  Improvident  to  the  last  degree  as  they  are, 
and  accustomed  to  have  all  their  wants  attended  to, 
day  by  day,  would  find  them  without  provision; 
which  night  by  night  they  must  plunder  of 
stock  and  of  every  other  thing  which  they  could  carry 
off,  until  the  country  would  be  laid  waste  and  impover 
ished  by  their  interminable  aggressions." 
This  feeling  of  danger  from  the  increase  of  the  number  of 
freedmen  became  so  prevalent  by  1820  that  the  legis- 
*Pamphlet,  Doom  of  Slavery  in  the  Union. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  171 

l,ature,  in  obedience  to  it,  prohibited  in  that  year  the  emanci 
pation  of  any  slaves,  except  by  its  own  edict,  f  At  its 
next  session  in  1821  it  had  before  it  petitions  from  owners 
for  permission  to  emancipate  as  many  as  forty-five  slaves. 
A  committee  was  appointed  to  investigate  as  to  the  de 
sirability  of  complying  with  their  prayers.*  It  appears, 
however,  that  the  failure  of  the  legislature  to  take  further 
action  was  intended  to  be  interpreted  that  the  law  of  1820 
was  to  be  construed  as  an  absolute  prohibition  except  in 
unusual  cases. 

The  most  common  circumstances  under  which  emanci 
pation  of  his  slaves  was  sought  by  the  master  was  in  a  will 
made  often  near  the  close  of  his  life  when  in  calmer  moments 
he  realized  that  some  opportunity  for  bettering  the  condi 
tion  of  his  slaves  ought  to  be  made  possible;  or  when  he 
desired  to  reward  the  faithfulness  of  a  slave  who  perhaps 
was  diligent  in  attending  him  in  a  last  illness;  or  again  he 
might  wish  to  atone  for  some  fancied  or  real  cruelty  to 
his  slaves.  After  a  life  of  self  interest  had  been  served  the 
man  was  more  likely  to  be  capable  of  looking  at  things  in 
an  unbiased  light.  But  to  leave  a  will  to  carry  out  such 
ideas  involved  his  executors  in  difficulties  from  which  they 
could  not  well  escape.  Realizing  that  peaceful  emanci 
pation  could  not  be  accomplished  within  the  state,  the 
testator  often  directed  that  they  be  removed  from  the 
state  and  set  free.  In  1835  the  Court  of  Appeals  held§ 
that  this  kind  of  will  was  not  in  violation  of  the  letter  or 
the  spirit  of  the  act  of  1820,  for  it  obviated  the  objection 
which  that  law  sought  to  remove.  This  objection  was  that 
emancipation  increased  the  number  of  free  negroes  in  the 
community.  But  after  removal  and  subsequent  emanci 
pation  they  could  not  return  because  of  the  prohibitions 
of  the  same  law  of  1820  against  the  immigration  of  free 
persons  of  color.  This  was  directly  in  keeping  with  the 
sentiment  expressed  earlier  by  Governor  Geddes  in  1820, 
the  advice  of  whom  with  reference  to  the  immigration  of 

tStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  459. 

'Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  1,  12,  1821. 

§2  Hill  (Chancery),  304:  Frazier  et  al.  vs.  Frazier,  Executor. 


172  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

free  negroes  and  emancipation  was  formulated  into  law 
just  at  that  time.  After  speaking  of  the  evil  of  the  free 
negro  immigrant  he  had  said: 

"The  restrictions  on  emancipation  might  be  dis 
pensed  with  if  persons  emancipated  should  be  obliged 
to  depart  the  state,  within  a  limited  time,  and  not 
be  allowed  to  return  to  it  afterwards,  without  your 
authority,  on  pain  of  seizure.  But  lest  such  a  con 
dition  annexed  to  emancipation  should  be  deemed 
void,  owners  of  slaves  might  be  allowed  to  release 
all  right  to  their  service,  provided  they  remove  out 
of  the  state  within  a  certain  time,  and  their  release 
to  be  in  force  during  their  absence  from  the  state; 
and  a  slave  to  whom  it  may  be  given,  to  be  liable  to 
be  seized  as  a  slave  on  his  being  found  within  the 
state  at  any  time  after  the  period  fixed  by  law  for 
his  leaving  the  same." 

As  already  remarked  the  highest  court  seemed  always 
to  be  very  liberal  in  its  interpretation  of  laws  relating  to 
slavery.  This  broad  construction  of  the  slave  code  was 
referred  to  as  "judicial  legislation"  by  a  member  of  the 
general  assembly  in  1847*  in  the  following  words: 

"Here  is  an  illustration  of  judicial  legislation. 
We  have  endeavored  here  to  say,  that  no  bequest 
of  freedom  to  a  slave  shall  take  effect  after  the  death 
of  an  owner  .  .  .  but  the  judges  are  opposed 
to  this  law  and  they  are  endeavoring  by  every  mode 
to  evade  its  operation."! 

In  1840  there  came  up  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  the  noted 
Carmille  case.§  A  slaveowner,  Carmille,  had  died  leav 
ing  a  will  which  with  reference  to  his  slaves  provided 
that  they  should  be  set  free  if  possible.  If  they  could 
not  be  legally  emancipated  they  were  to  be  conveyed 
in  trust  to  certain  trustees  who  would  allow  them  to  hire 
their  time,  paying  only  a  nominal  sum  to  the  trustees. 

^Columbia  Daily  Telegraph,  Dec.  6,  1847. 

fThis  particular  criticism,  however,  applies  specifically  to  the  act 
of  1841  discussed  below. 

§2  McMullan  (Law),  454:  Carmille  vs.  Adm'r's  of  Carmille  et  al. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  173 

This  was  unquestionably  in  conflict  with  the  policy  of 
the  statutes  on  the  subject  of  emancipation.  Persons 
interested  in  the  estate  brought  suit  on  the  ground  that 
the  earnings  of  a  slave  belonged  to  his  owner,  in  this  case 
the  heirs.  The  court  held  that  the  will  of  the  testator 
was  not  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  act  of  1820  and 
was  not  in  violation  of  the  state's  policy  towards  the  negro, 
and  that  the  will  ought  to  be  carried  out. 

This  decision  seems  to  have  gone  a  step  too  far.  It 
aroused  the  sentiment  of  the  legislature  and  caused  the 
passage  of  the  sweeping  act  of  1841.*  This  act  shows 
that  there  were  reasons  other  than  the  mere  policy  of 
preventing  an  increase  in  the  number  of  free  negroes  in 
the  state.  It  made  void  all  bequests,  deeds  or  trusts 
of  slaves  made  with  the  stipulation  that  they  be  removed 
from  the  state  and  emancipated;  it  prohibited  all  gifts 
with  secret  or  expressed  understanding  by  which  slaves 
should  be  removed  from  the  state  and  set  free;  and  pro 
vided  that  the  donee  might  be  held  responsible  to  the 
heirs  and  next  of  kin  for  an  accounting  of  the  value  of 
slaves  so  transferred  by  the  donor;  it  nullified  all  bequests 
or  trusts  of  slaves  with  a  view  of  holding  them  in  nominal 
slavery,  but  allowing  them  to  act  as  free  persons;  it,  also, 
prohibited  any  devise  or  bequest  of  property  from  being 
held  in  trust  for  the  benefit  of  slaves.  The  statute  de 
pended  for  its  due  enforcement  upon  the  provision  that 
any  person  attempting  to  administer  a  will  and  carry 
out  such  provisions  could  be  held  financially  responsible 
by  heirs  or  other  beneficiaries. 

There  was  one  point,  however,  while  not  so  important, 
that  the  lawmakers  overlooked,  and  the  court  in  1860 
took  occasion  to  uphold  the  validity  of  an  emancipation 
where  an  owner  himself  took  his  slaves  out  of  the  state 
and  set  them  free.  In  1844f  the  court  decided  that  the 
act  of  1841  §  arrested  the  operation  of  a  will  made  in  1839 

*Statutes  at  Large,  XI,  168.  The  authority  for  the  above  statement 
will  be  found  in  the  case  of  Morton  vs.  Thompson,  6  Richardson 
(Equity),  374,  decided  in  1854. 

til  Richardson  (Equity),  447:  Willis  vs.  Joliffe. 

§1  Richardson  (Equity),  61:  Gordon  vs.  Blackman. 


174  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

that  certain  slaves  should  be  removed  from  the  state 
and  emancipated  by  the  executors  of  the  estate  of  the 
deceased,  since  the  will  had  not  been  carried  out  prior 
to  the  passage  of  the  act,  on  the  ground  that  no  legal 
right  can  be  vested  in  a  slave.  But  in  another  case,  in 
1851, t  the  court  apparently  reversed  itself  by  declaring 
that  a  will  allowing  practical  freedom,  while  nominal 
ownership  was  retained,  was  valid. 

The  act  of  1841  was  intended  apparently  to  close  every 
avenue  of  approach  to  emancipation.  These  laws  are 
not  always  of  course  to  be  taken  as  a  final  indication  of 
public  sentiment.  There  was  evidently  a  large  class  of 
persons  who  honestly  desired  to  see  a  less  severe  policy 
pursued.  Their  views  probably  cannot  be  better  ex 
pressed  than  in  the  clear  and  rugged  style  of  Justice 
O'Neall.  In  1845,  he  said:* 

'T  think  its  policy  [i.  e.,  of  the  legislature  against 
emancipation]  so  questionable  that  it  ought  to  be 
repealed.  A  law,  evaded  as  it  is,  and  against  which 
public  sentiment,  within  and  without  the  state, 
is  so  much  arrayed,  ought  not  to  stand.  It  is  better 
by  far,  that  a  wise  and  prudent  system  of  emancipa 
tion,  like  that  of  1800,  should  exist,  rather  than  that 
unlicensed  emancipation  according  to  private  arrange 
ment  should  take  place. 

"What  is  there  in  the  policy  of  the  law  of  South 
Carolina  to  forbid  emancipation  by  an  owner,  of 
a  faithful,  honest,  good  slave?  Have  we  anything 
to  fear  from  such  a  liberal  and  humane  course.  I 
should  be  sorry  to  believe  that  our  domestic  insti 
tution  of  slavery  required  any  such  restrictions 
upon  the  rights  of  the  owners.  Indeed,  where  any 
thing  is  pushed  to  extremes  injury  is  clone  to  it;  and 
that  is  now  the  case  of  the  act  of  1820  and  other 
kindred  provisions  in  other  acts.  They  are  con 
tinually  thrust  in  our  faces  by  those  who  undertook 
to  meddle  with  matters  which  do  not  concern  them, 

f3  Richardson  (Equity),  431:  Broughton  vs.  Telfer. 
*Strobhart  (Law),  547:  Vinyard  vs.  Passalaigne. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  175 

as  evidence  of    our  injustice  and  our  sense  of  error 
in  our  slave  system. 

"Until  fanaticism  and  folly  drove  us  from  that 
position  the  law  of  our  state  had  uniformly  favored 
emancipation  by  owners,  of  their  slave  property, 
with  such  limitations  and  guards  as  rendered  the  free 
negro  not  a  dangerous,  but  a  useful  member  of  the  com 
munity,  however  humble  he  might  be.  It  is  time 
we  should  return  to  it  and  say  to  all  at  home  and 
abroad,  we  have  nothing  to  fear  from  occasional 
emancipation." 

While  South  Carolina  cannot  be  set  down  as  a  community 
in  which  emancipation  was  often  sought  by  masters  for 
their  slaves  or  that  the  small  slaveholders  or  the  non- 
slaveholding  class  very  much  desired  increased  oppor 
tunities  for  this  class  of  the  population,  for  they  saw  no 
other  method  of  police  control,  still  there  were  doubt 
less  many  evasions  of  the  law  and  slaves  were  allowed 
to  be  de  facto  free.  Heirs  might  claim  their  property 
but  doubtless  they  often  regarded  the  desire  of  the  re 
cently  deceased  relative.  Or,  if  the  slaves  were  allowed 
to  go  free  in  the  lifetime  of  the  owner,  there  was  but  little 
probability  that  they  would  ever  be  reduced  to  serfdom 
again.  Judge  O'Neal  in  his  work  on  the  Negro  Law  in 
South  Carolina^  says  of  the  laws  against  emancipation 
and  their  evasion: 

"Like  all  of  its  class,  it  has  done  harm  instead  of 
good.  It  has  caused  evasions  without  number. 
These  have  been  successful  by  vesting  ownership  in 
persons  legally  capable  of  holding  it,  and  thus  sub 
stantially  conferring  freedom,  when  it  was  legally 
denied." 

The  instances  of  emancipation  are  necessarily  to  be 
thought  of  as  comparatively  few,  probably  fewer  than  the 
above  quotation  would  seem  to  imply.  The  chief  ob 
jection  to  the  law  prohibiting  emancipation  was  in  that 
it  prevented  all  opportunity,  or  tended  to  prevent  it, 

tP.  11. 


176  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

toward  a  peaceable  and  satisfactory  gradual  emancipa 
tion  of  those  best  fitted  to  exercise  such  freedom  with 
broadest  legal  opportunity:  however,  it  is  probable  that 
this  would  have  made  slower  progress  in  South  Carolina 
than  in  some  other  of  the  Southern  states. 


CHAPTER    XIX 
The  Free  Negro 

It  is  probable  that  at  an  early  period  there  were  free 
negroes  residing  in  the  colony.  It  does  not  seem  likely, 
however,  that  many  came  into  the  state  in  any  other 
condition  than  as  slaves.  But  doubtless  setting  them 
free  came  as  a  sort  of  careless  use  of  the  negro's  services, 
or  because  he  had  in  instances  proved  to  be  sufficiently 
useful  to  deserve  reward.  There  were  unquestionably 
a  few  free  negroes  in  the  colony  when  the  first  slave  code 
of  1712  was  framed;  for  the  latter,  in  section  1,  defines 
as  slaves  all  who  were  then  held  as  such  or  who  should 
hereafter  be  sold  or  bought,  except  those  who  could  prove 
that  they  ought  not  to  be  held  in  slavery.  Less  than 
ten  years  prior  to  the  Revolution  the  Charleston  grand 
jury  had  the  following  to  say  of  them:* 

"We  present  as  a  grievance,  the  bad  practice  of 
free  negroes  and  mulattoes  being  suffered  to  pass  to 
and  fro  without  any  certificate  or  badge  of  their 
being  free,  by  which  means  many  runaway  slaves 
are  suffered  to  pass  as  free." 

The  first  legislation  dealing  specifically  with  the  free 
negro  as  distinguished  from  the  slave  was  passed  in 
1794f  and  prohibited  the  immigration  of  free  negroes 
into  the  state  and  directed  that  any  so  offending  should 
be  transported  whence  they  came.  This  was  renewed  in 

*  South  Carolina  Gazette,  Nov.  9,  1767. 
fStatutes  at  Large,  VII,  433. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  177 

1800  by  an  act*  which  also  prohibited  the  introduction 
of  slaves  from  other  states. 

For  a  long  time  the  free  negro  was  a  sort  of  non-de- 
script  so  far  as  his  status  legally  and  socially  was  concerned. 
But  after  some  time  the  control  of  this  class  of  persons 
not  subject  to  the  slavery  system  gave  concern.  Their 
number  had  gone  on  increasing  by  additional  eman 
cipations  from  year  to  year.  In  1790  there  were  1,801 
free  negroes  in  the  state,  3,185  in  1800,  in  1820  6,826,  f 
in  1860  9,914. 

The  whites  usually  looked  upon  the  possibilities  of  the 
free  negro's  situation  for  insurrectionary  purposes  as 
being  very  great.  Hence  on  November  30,  1819,  the 
house  of  representatives  adopted,  in  committee  of  the 
whole,  the  following  resolution:! 

"That  it  is  expedient  to  prohibit  the  further  in 
troduction  of  free  negroes  in  this  state." 
It  was  in  1820  that  the  general  assembly  prohibited 
any  further  emancipation.  This  was  part  of  a  definite 
policy  of  the  state  to  prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  any  in 
crease  in  the  number  of  this  variety  of  the  population. 
As  a  companion  piece  of  legislation  there  was  another 
provision*  embraced  in  the  same  act  to  prohibit  the  im 
migration  of  free  negroes  into  the  state.  Any  free  negro 
entering  the  state  from  the  outside  was  to  be  arrested 
and  taken  before  a  magistrate  who  was  to  direct  him  to 
leave  the  state  and  in  case  he  failed  to  do  so  within  fifteen 
days  he  was  to  be  fined  $20,  a  process  which  could  be 
repeated  indefinitely.  It  is  not  probable  that  many 
free  negroes  came.  Gov.  Geddes  had  said  in  his  message 
of  1820: 

"In  connection,  however,  with  this  subject,  I  deem 
it  proper  to  inform  you  that  a  number  of  free  persons 
of  color  have  emigrated  and  are  daily  emigrating  to 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  436. 

tSchaper  (p.  393)  accounts  for  the  large  increase  from  1790  to  1820 
by  the  emancipation  by  the  Quakers  of  their  slaves. 
§SouthernlPatriot,  Dec.  3,  1819. 
^Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  415. 


178  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

and  settling  in  this  state.     The  policy  of  our  country 
forbids  the  increase  of  this  class  of  persons  among 
us,    and    under   existing   circumstances   imperatively 
calls  for  the  adoption  of  the  strongest  measures  to 
prevent  it,  and   it  may  be  deemed  a  duty  to  oppose 
at  the  threshold   everything  likely  in  its  consequences 
to  disturb  our  domestic  tranquility." 
But  what  seems  to  have  had  more  influence  on  the  legis 
lators  is  thus  told  in  the  legislative  news  items  in  the 
Charleston  Courier  of  December  12,  1820: 

"Three  interesting  papers  from  an  unknown  writer 
under  the  signature  of  a   'Carolinian'  were  laid  on 
the  desk  of  the  members  of  the  State  legislature  a  few 
days  since     .     .     .     reprobating  in  bold  and  energetic 
language    the  evil  policy  of  continuing  to  admit  in 
such  numbers,  free  persons  of  color  to  settle  amongst 
us.     .     .     .     The   statements  and   parts  detailed   in 
these  papers  had  excited  much  attention  at  Columbia." 
We    have    already    called    attention    to    the    profound 
impression  that  was  made  by  the  Vesey  plot  in  Charles 
ton.     The  only  legislative  acts  that  can  be  cited  as  due 
entirely  to  this  excitement  were  those  made  with  a  view 
to  the  further  restriction  of  the  free  negro.     The  seamen 
acts,    already   referred   to,   were    passed   to   prevent   any 
pernicious  activity  of  any  free  negroes  who  were  members 
of   the   crews   of  visiting    sea-going  vessels.     Every   free 
negro,  from  fifteen  to  fifty  years  old,  if  he  was  not  a  native 
of  the  state  or  had  not  been  a  resident  of  the  state  for 
five  years,  was  made  by  this  act,*  liable  to  a;i  annual  tax 
of   $50.     This  same   act  provided  that  every   free   male 
negro  over  fifteen  years  of  age  should  have  a  guardian 
who  in  law  was  a  "next  friend"  or  "prochein  ami."     This 
guardian   was    to   be    "a   respectable    freeholder"    of   the 
district  in  which  the  negro  lived.     It  should  be  his  duty 
in  becoming  the  guardian  of  this  ward  to  go  before  the 
clerk  of  court  of  that  district,  giving  his  certificate  that 
the  negro  in  question  "is  of  good  character  and  correct 

*Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  461. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  179 

habits,"  and  then  to  signify  in  another  signed  statement 
his  acceptance  of  the  guardianship  of  said  negro.  Any 
free  negro  failing  to  provide  himself  with  the  necessary  legal 
guardian  was  to  be  treated  as  a  free  negro  entering  the 
state.* 

In  the  Sumter  clerk  of  court's  office  is  to  be  found  an 
old  record  book,  the  first  of  its  kind  evidently  for  that  dis 
trict,  for  the  act  of  1822  was  the  first  of  such  enactments;  the 
book  has  the  title  "Guardians  of  Free  Negroes."  This  par 
ticular  book  covers  the  years  1823-1842.  In  1823,  when 
the  law  first  went  into  effect,  there  are  twenty  guardian 
ships  recorded.  The  largest  number  recorded  after  this 
is  five  in  1840,  there  being  none  recorded  in  some  years. 
In  another  book  in  the  same  office  are  to  be  found  lists 
of  children  of  free  negroes  certified  to  by  the  guardian. t 

The  guardian  was  to  be  to  the  free  negro  what  the  master 
was  to  the  slave.  This  was  the  result  of  the  effort  to  re 
quire  every  free  negro  to  have  some  white  person  who  would 
vouch  for,  or  be  responsible  for,  the  negro.  The  extent 
of  this  responsibility  was  not  great  except  in  legal  actions. 
There  is  every  reason,  however,  to  believe  that  any  white 
person  who  took  a  sufficiently  kindly  interest  in  a  free 
colpred  man  was  a  source  of  protection  to  him.  Advice 
as  to  his  business  affairs,  attention  in  illness,  or  reproof 
for  misconduct  would  naturally  be  supposed  to  be  the 
proper  services  rendered  such  a  colored  ward  by  his  guard 
ian.  The  quasi-authority  of  the  guardian  could  probably 
be  enforced  by  a  threat  to  withdraw  his  guardianship; 
though  the  law  does  not  indicate  whether  this  could  be 
withdrawn  at  will  or  not.  It  was  not  intended  that  the 
guardian  should  in  any  way  limit  the  freedom  of  the  negro 
to  move  about  from  place  to  place,  or  to  trade  or  to  hire 
himself.  By  the  act  of  1835§  the  free  person  of  color  was 
forbidden  to  carry  arms  except  with  a  written  permit  from 
his  guardian. 

*For  a  sample  of  free  negro  guardianship  papers  see  appendix. 

tBook  K,  p.  67;  July  25,  1838.  In  the  archives  at  Columbia  is 
preserved  a  book  containing  an  original  list  of  the  names  of  the  free 
negroes  of  Charleston.  It  is  called  the  "Free  Negro  Book." 

§Statutes  at  Large,  VI Iv  470. 


180  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how,  when  this  act  was 
passed  in  1822,  the  body  of  negroes  then  free  secured  pro 
tection  of  the  necessary  guardian.  But  if  they  were 
agreeable,  honest  and  orderly  they  probably  found  no 
great  difficulty  in  acquiring  a  guardian  among  the  families 
of  their  former  owners  or  employers.  He  may  in  some 
instances  have  even  rendered  slight  services.  There  would 
be  every  reason  to  believe  that  free  negro  men  often  grew 
up  without  such  legal  formal  acceptance  of  a  guardianship 
by  a  white  person.  But  if  any  occasion  arose  which  legally 
necessitated  a  guardian,  as  for  example  the  collection  of  a 
debt  due  the  negro,  the  white  person  could  be  found  who 
would  accept.  There  was  no  law  holding  the  guardian 
in  any  way  financially  or  otherwise  responsible  for  the  con 
duct  of  his  ward.  There  was  likely,  however,  pressure 
of  public  sentiment  in  that  direction. 

The  legal  status  of  the  free  person  of  color  may  now  be 
described  in  substance.  He  was  tried  for  crime  before 
the  same  kind  of  court  as  that  provided  for  the  trial  of 
slaves;  he  was  subject  to  the  same  kind  of  penalties — cor 
poral  punishment — with  the  possible  addition  of  a  fine; 
his  testimony  could  not  be  accepted  in  court  against  a 
white  person,  though  a  slave  was  a  competent  witness 
against  a  free  negro;  he  had  full  right  to  acquire,  hold  and 
transfer  property;*  he  might  and  did  often  own  slaves. f 
The  right  of  free  negroes  to  hold  property,  particularly 
property  in  slaves,  was  thus  defended  by  the  Charleston 
Courier  of  December  8,  1835: 

"The  projected  denial  of  the  right  of  slave  owner 
ship  [debated  in  the  legislature]  is  another  measure 
of  obviously  mistaken  policy.  His  right  to  hold  slaves 
gives  him  a  stake  in  the  institution  of  slavery  and 
makes  it  his  interest  as  well  as  his  duty  to  uphold  it. 
It  identifies  his  interests  and  his  feelings  in  this  particu- 

*2  McMullan  (Law),  472:  Bowers  et  al.  vs.  Newman. 

fl  Hill  (Law),  123:  Cline  vs.  Caldwell.  One  hundred  and  twenty-six 
slaves  were  owned  by  free  negroes  of  Charleston  in  1860.  Booker 
Washington  (Outlook,  93,  107)  estimates  that  $1,000,000  worth  of 
property  was  held  in  Charleston  by  free  negroes,  one  family  of  them 
owning  $80,000  worth  of  property,  including  thirty-six  slaves. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  181 

lar    with  those  of  the  white  population,  and  we  can 
imagine  no  sufficient  reason  for  the  severance.     The 
hardship,  too,  of  the  case  is  worth  consideration — the 
right  has  not  only  been  enjoyed  for  years  but  in  many 
cases  since  the   enactment  of  our   law  against  manu 
mission  it  has  been  the  only  means  of  placing  husband 
and  wife  under  one  roof  and  in  the  bosom  of  one  family 
— and   we  cannot  relish   the   idea  of  compelling  the 
husband  to  sell  his  wife  or  the  parent  the  child." 
The   best  authoritative  statement  of  the  legal   status, 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  free  negro  may  be  found  in  the 
Harden  case  coming  up  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  1832 
from   Chester  district.*     A  free   negro,   according  to  the 
testimony  of  other  white  men,  had  been  unmercifully  and 
without  cause  beaten  by  a  white  man.     The  case  reached 
the  highest  court  on  the  objection  that  an  indictment  for 
assault  upon  a  negro  could  not  lie.     The  important  part 
of  the  decision  is  as  follows: 

"Free  negroes  without  any  of  the  political  rights 
that  belong  to  a  citizen  are  still,  to  some  extent,  re 
garded  by  the  law  as  possessing  both  natural  and  civil 
rights.  The  rights  of  liberty,  life  and  property  belong 
to  them  and  must  be  protected  by  the  community  in 
which  they  are  suffered  to  live.  They  are  regarded, 
in  law,  as  persons  capable  of  committing  or  receiving 
an  injury;  and  for  the  one  they  are  liable  for  punish 
ment,  and  for  the  other  they  are  entitled  to  redress." 

"For  to  no  white  man  does  the  right  belong  of  cor-r 
recting  at  pleasure  a  free  negro.  The  peace  of  society 
is  as  much  broken  by  an  assault  upon  him  as  it  is 
upon  a  white  man.  Like  the  latter,  he  has  his  pas 
sions,  and  with  the  means  of  attack  and  defense  in 
his  possession,  if  the  law  refused  to  protect  him,  he, 
too,  at  last,  might  be  driven  to  repel  force  by  force. 
The  only  difference  in  the  law  as  to  indictments  for 
assaults  and  batteries  on  free  white  men  and  free 
negroes,  seems  to  me  to  consist  in  the  different  justi- 

*2  Spears  (Law),  128:  State  vs.  Harden. 


182  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

fication  which  would  excuse  an  assault  and  battery 
on  the  one  or  the  other.  Free  negroes  belong  to  a 
degraded  caste  of  society;  they  are  in  no  respect 
on  an  equality  with  a  white  man.  According  to  their 
condition  they  ought  by  law  to  be  compelled  to  demean 
themselves  as  inferiors,  from  whom  submission  and 
respect  to  the  whites,  in  all  their  intercourse  in  society, 
is  demanded ;  I  have  always  thought  and  while  on  the 
circuit  ruled  that  words  of  impertinence  and  insolence, 
addressed  by  a  free  negro  to  a  white  man,  would 
justify  an  assault  and  battery." 

The  free  negroes  as  individuals  very  probably  always 
had  friends,  but  as  a  class  they  were  often  distrusted  by 
the  whites  and  scorned  by  the  slaves.  To  the  well  kept 
house  slave,  the  phrase  "no  'count  as  a  free  nigger"  was 
the  bitterest  reproach  that  could  be  cast  upon  him  by  his 
fellows  or  his  master.  Perhaps  one  of  the  most  reliable 
statements  with  reference  to  his  standing  in  the  community 
is  to  be  found  as  an  incidental  remark  in  the  case  of  Vinyard 
vs.  Passalaigne,  decided  in  1845:* 

"Every  one  knows,  that  the  free  negroes   in  South 
Carolina  are  far,  very  far,  from  being  a  class  envied  by 
our  slaves.     Generally  they  are  worse  off  in  every  re 
spect  ;  they  throw  themselves  under  the  sheltering  wing 
of  some  benevolent   white  man,  and  instead  of  being 
fomenters    of    insubordination    and    rebellion    among 
slaves,  they  pursue  here  a  directly  contrary  course." 
A  favorable  estimate  of  the  condition  and  character  of  the 
free  negro  can  be  seen  in  an  editorial  in  the  Charleston 
Courier  of  December  9,  1835: 

"We  are  free,  too,  to  confess  that  the  conduct  of 
the  free  colored  people  of  this  city,  if  not  of  the  state, 
has  been  for  the  most  part  so  correct,  evincing  so  much 
civility,  subordination,  industry  and  propriety,  that 
unless  their  conduct  should  change  for  the  worse, 
or  some  stern  necessity  demand  it,  we  are  unwilling 
to  see  them  deprived  of  those  immunities  which  they 

*2  Strobhart  (Law),  536. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  183 

have  enjoyed  for  centuries  without  the  slightest  det 
riment  to  the  commonwealth." 

Weston,  writing  in  1857,t  expresses  doubt  as  to  the  free 
negro  being  so  profligate  as  is  often  charged  because  the 
fact  that  their  numbers  are  uniformly  maintained  would 
seem  to  indicate  the  opposite. 

There  was  a  general  tendency  to  discriminate  against 
the  free  negro.  In  Marion  no  free  person  of  color  was  al 
lowed  to  follow  regular  employment  without  a  permit, 
granted  upon  the  payment  of  a  fee  of  $1.50.*  Charleston 
laid  a  tax  of  $10  on  free  negro  males  from  twenty-one  to 
sixty  years  of  age  "who  are  carrying  on  any  trade  or  art 
or  being  a  mechanic. "§  E.  R.  Laurens  found  the  opposi 
tion,  particularly  in  Charleston,  to  the  free  negro  to  be 
in  the  fact  that  he  competed  to  some  extent  in  the  skilled 
trades.*  In  1848  by  the  industrial  census  of  the  city  of 
Charleston  we  find  with  reference  to  free  negroes  that  there 
were  42  tailors  and  cap  makers,  27  carpenters  and  joiners, 
17  boot  and  shoe  makers,  and  196  colored  free  women  as 
seamstresses  and  mantuamakers — more  than  all  other 
seamstresses  combined. ft 

Free  negro  males  from  eighteen  to  fifty  years  of  age 
were  subjected  to  a  poll  tax  of  two  dollars,  for  failure 
to  pay  which  the  sheriff  was  authorized  to  sell  him  for  a 
period  of  service  not  more  than  five  years,  sufficient  to 
pay  the  costs.** 

While  competition  with  the  white  laboring  class  might 
cause  dissatisfaction  with  the  free  negro  of  Charleston, 
where  about  eight  per  cent,  of  the  colored  population  was 
free,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  hostility  to  the  free  negro 

fProgress  of  Slavery,  p.  25. 

*Marion  Star,  Feb.  2,  1858,  Adv't  City  Ordinance. 

§2  Spears  (Law),  623:  State  vs.  City  Council  of  Charleston,  in  1844. 

JPamphlet  Address  by  E.  R.  Laurens  before  the  Agricultural  Society 
of  South  Carolina  in  1832. 

ffFigures  from  Phillips:  Slave  Labor  in  the  Charleston  District, 
Political  Science  Quarterly,  XXII,  No.  3. 

**An  old  gentleman  told  the  writer  of  having  seen  a  negro  sold  for 
failure  to  pay  his  taxes. 


184  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

was  any  more  bitter  in  Charleston,  if  as  bitter,  than  it  was  in 
other  parts  of  the  state.  It  was  from  other  parts  of  the 
state,  where  farming  and  cotton  raising  chiefly  was  the  prin 
cipal  industry,  and  hence  where  there  was  practically  no 
competition  offered  by  them,  and  where  the  free  negroes 
were  fewer  in  number,  that  a  most  unfriendly  feeling  toward 
them  existed.  The  case  was  coldly  summed  up  in  a  letter 
by  R.  G.  Harper  in  the  First  Annual  Report  of  the  Coloni 
zation  Society.  His  view  was  that  the  free  negro  is  inferior 
socially,  improvident,  liable  to  corrupt  and  poison  the  minds 
of  the  slaves  who  envy  his  condition,  works  occasionally, 
assists  slaves  in  theft,  becoming  thus  a  medium  for  illegal 
trading,  affords  opportunity  for  unlawful  meetings  and  in 
surrectionary  movements.  This  view  can  be  compared 
with  that  of  a  "Carolinian,"*  who  thinks  that  mulattoes 
form  a  sort  of  barrier  between  the  slave  and  white  acting 
as  a  preventive  of  insurrections. 

We  have  already  quoted  some  of  the  more  favorable 
opinions  concerning  the  free  negroes.  It  will  now  be  ap 
propriate  to  give  a  few  extracts  typical  of  the  unfavorable 
estimate  of  them  as  a  class.  The  latter  form  the  larger 
part  of  the  contemporary  comments  on  this  subject.  Here 
may  be  quoted  a  mild  editorial  accusation  against  this 
class  from  the  Camden  Journal  of  November  19,  1850: 

"The  free  negroes  as  a  class  are  the  most  miserable 
set  of  creatures  upon  earth;  having  the  right  of  prop 
erty  in  our  midst,  besides  enjoying  many  privileges 
which  our  slaves  do  not  have,  they  possess  the  means 
of  corrupting,  and  do  corrupt  and  destroy  in  a  moral 
and  physical  sense,  the  actual  value  of  that  species 
of  property  which  is  the  source  and  cause  of  so  much 
strife  in  the  Federal  Government,  and  which  is  likely 
to  involve  us  in  a  second  Revolution." 
The  newspaper  comments  on  the  free  person  of  color  have 
the  ring  of  prejudice  and  insincerity  about  them.     While 
the   free   negro  was  amenable   to  the  magistrates'  court 
still  the  grand  jury  of  Marlborough  district  in  1850  took 
cognizance  of  the  rather  obstreperous  conduct  of  a  certain 

*Pamphlet:  "Refutations  against  the  Southern  and  Western  States." 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  185 

free  negro  in  that  community  using  the  following  language:* 
"We  present  that  James  Young,  a  Free  Negro,  is 
in  the  habit  of  carrying  concealed  deadly  weapons, 
and  has  made  threat  to  take  the  life  of  Gilbert  Oxend- 
inel,  also  a  free  negro,  and  we  pray  the  court  to  take 
such  measures  as  will  bring  the  said  Young  to  Summary 
justice." 

Another  more  biased  illustration  of  the  newspaper  talk 
will  suffice.  The  editorial  management  of  the  Rising 
Sun  of  Newberry  developed  an  extremely  strong  dislike 
for  this  species  of  the  population.  In  an  editorial  of  May 
19,  1858,  some  of  the  things  complained  of  are:  renting  of 
houses  to  free  negroes,  thus  becoming  a  rendezvous  for 
crime — "Brothels,  greasy  spots,  Black  Marks;"  hiring  to 
them  horses  and  buggies;  permitting  them  to  career  around 
to  the  envy  of  the  slaves;  collecting  of  negroes  on  public 
corners  and  places  in  the  town;  he  winds  up  with,  "Oh,  vi 
et  armis  per  cowhide."  The  editor  in  1860  became  a 
candidate  for  the  legislature  and  one  of  the  planks  of  his 
platform  was  to  require  each  free  negro  to  choose  a  master 
and  re-enter  slavery.  He  was  not  elected  but  probably 
this  idea  of  his  lost  him  no  votes.  This  same  feeling,  whether 
with  good  reason  or  not,  was  shared  by  the  grand  jury 
of  Union  district  in  1855.  It  said:f 

"We  further  present  as  a  public  nuisance  the  fact 
that  a  number  of  worthless  free  negroes  harbor  in 
and  around  this  village  without  any  visible  means  of 
support." 

To  the  writer  the  picture  of  the  free  negro  as  it  is  here 
given  appears  for  the  following  reasons  to  be  somewhat 
overdrawn:  First,  the  comments  are  usually  generali 
zations,  with  but  few  specific  charges  and  rarely  is  an  indi 
vidual  case  cited  to  illustrate  the  charge.  Unfortunately 
no  records  of  the  courts  for  the  trial  of  slaves  and  free 
negroes  were  kept.  Hence  what  would  give  us  the  best 
clue  as  to  the  number  of  criminals  and  the  frequency  of 
crime  among  the  free  negroes  is  not  available.  Secondly, 

*MS.  records  Marlborough  county. 
|MS.  records  of  Union  county. 


186  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

in  contrast  with  these  comments  unfavorable  to  the  free 
negroes  stands  other  evidence,  typical  extracts  of  which 
were  quoted,  that  gives  the  free  negroes  a  reputation  for 
orderliness  and  thrift.  Some  of  this  evidence,  too,  is  from 
sources  the  most  reliable  and  least  likely  to  be  biased. 
Thirdly,  the  recollections  of  survivors  of  the  ante-bellum 
period  substantiate  this  favorable  opinion  of  the  free  negroes 
as  a  class.  This  kind  of  evidence,  while  the  weakest 
critically  however,  is  worth  considering  as  corroborative 
testimony.  The  writer  has  talked  with  numbers  of  the 
older  citizens  of  the  state  and  in  reply  to  specific  inquiries 
they  almost  uniformly  remember  the  free  negroes,  as  per 
sons  who  rarely  caused  disturbance  of  the  peace  or  became 
by  their  shiftlessness  a  charge  to  the  community.  Fourthly, 
many  of  the  unfavorable  opinions,  particularly  the  editorial 
comments  of  newspapers  in  the  extravagance  of  their 
statement,  of  ten  betray  a  tone  of  prejudice  and  insincerity. 
Whether  the  free  negroes  were  the  serious  menace  to 
the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  community  that  they  are  fre 
quently  represented  to  have  been  may  be  doubted.  But 
the  readiness  of  the  whites  to  charge  any  disorderly  con 
duct  among  the  negroes  to  the  agency  of  the  colored  free 
men  must  have  operated  as  a  check  upon  them,  since  it  is 
reasonable  to  believe  that  they  were  aware  of  this  suspicious 
concern  with  which  the  superior  race  watched  their  conduct. 
This  hostility  to  the  colored  freeman  began  to  crystal 
lize  into  a  definitely  expressed  policy.  One  of  the  plans 
of  dealing  with  the  free  negro  was  deportation.  "The 
Southern  Rights  Association,"  of  Kershaw  district,  as 
early  as  1850,  took  the  following  action:* 

"Resolved  that  the  Chairman  of  the  several  Com 
mittees  of  safety  constitute  a  committee  to  circulate 
memorials  to  the  Legislature  of  this  State  to  provide 
the  means  for  removing  from  her  borders  all  free  per 
sons  of  color." 

Governor  Seabrook,  in  his  annual  message  of  1850,  bowing 
to  the  popular  bias,  had  the  following  to  say  of  the  character 
of  the  free  negro  and  how  to  deal  with  him : 

*The  Camden  Journal,  Nov.  5,  1850. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  187 

"Although  the  mind  of  the  community  has  not 
been  prepared  by  public  discussion  or  perhaps  by 
private  interchange  of  views  on  the  subject,  yet  it 
is  my  deliberate  opinion  that  the  period  has  arrived 
for  the  removal  from  the  State  of  every  free  colored 
person  who  is  not  the  owner  of  real  estate  or  slave- 
property.  This  population  is  not  only  a  non-pro 
ductive  class,  but  it  is,  and  always  has  been,  essentially 
corrupt  and  corrupting.  Their  longer  residence  among 
us,  if  the  warfare  between  the  North  and  South  is  to 
continue,  will  eventually  generate  evils  difficult  of 
eradication.  Possessing,  in  an  unlimited  degree,  the 
right  of  locomotion,  they  can  in  person  bear  intelli 
gence  in  a  day,  from  one  section  of  a  State  to  another, 
or  through  the  post  office  mature  their  own  plans  of 
villainy,  as  well  as  execute  orders  emanating  from 
foreign  sources.  There  is,  indeed,  too  much  reason  to 
believe,  that  at  this  moment  they  are  made  to  occupy 
the  situation  of  spies  in  our  camp,  and  to  disseminate 
through  the  entire  body  of  our  slave  population  the 
poison  of  insubordination,  prepared  in  the  great  north 
ern  laboratory  of  fanaticism." 

The  part  of  the  governor's  message  recommending  deporta 
tion  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  the  colored  popula 
tion.*  Its  report  was  unfavorable  to  the  scheme.  Its 
impracticability  is  summed  up  by  the  committee  in  somewhat 
the  following  way:  the  plan  is  novel  and  has  not  been  under 
discussion  by  the  people;  it  would  recognize  the  principles 
of  the  colonization  societies  not  favored  in  South  Caro 
lina;  it  would  work  an  undue  hardship  on  the  free  negroes 
and  particularly  in  a  property  way ;  the  expense  is  consider 
able — would  it  be  paid  out  of  confiscation  of  the  free  negro's 
property  or  state  funds?  if  in  the  latter  way  it  would  prove 
too  great  a  burden;  it  would  put  the  state  in  a  bad  light  in 
the  eyes  of  the  world.  The  problem  they  suggested  in 
dealing  with  the  idle  and  dissolute  freeman  of  color  they 
say  "can  be  met  with  judicious  penal  legislation  sufficient 
to  repress  the  evil  without  resorting  to  the  extreme  measure 

*  House  Journal,  1850,  p.  37. 


188  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

indicated    by    his    Excellency."*     Nothing    further    in    a 
legislative  way  seems  to  have  come  of  the  plan. 

This  recommendation  of  the  governor  seems  to  have  been 
somewhat  premature  and  not  much  more  appears  to  have 
been  said  with  reference  to  it  until  near  the  close  of  the 
decade.  In  the  fall  of  1858f  the  grand  jury  of  York  dis 
trict  in  its  presentment  recommended  that  the  state  ap 
propriate  sufficient  funds  for  the  removal  of  the  free  negroes 
to  Liberia,  giving  those  who  desired  to  remain  the  alter 
native  of  choosing  a  master  and  becoming  a  slave.  And 
at  the  same  term  of  the  court  at  Union  the  grand  jury  said 
of  them:§ 

"To   strengthen   our   peculiar    Institution   (slavery) 
and  to  remove  a  source  of  competition  from  among 
our  slaves,  we  recommend  the  passing  of  a  law  to 
clear  the  State  of  all  free  persons  of  colour." 
In  the  following  spring  the  Williamsburg  grand  jury  of  a 
district  having  only  thirty-seven  free  negroes  by  the  census 
of  1850  had  this  to  say  of  this  questionable  class: 

44 We  further  present  the  free  negroes  of  the  district 
as  a  nuisance  and  recommend  that  the  Legislature 
pass  some  law  that  will  have  the  effect  of  relieving 
the  community  of  this  troublesome  population." 
At  the  spring  term  of  the  Newberry  court  1  the  grand  jury 
made  recommendations  as  to  the  disposal  of  the  free  persons 
of  color  similar  to  that  made  in  York  the  preceding  fall. 

The  excitement  after  the  Brown  raid  in  Virginia  has  al 
ready  been  referred  to;  the  feeling  vented  itself  largely 
on  the  free  negro.  He  was  looked  upon  as  the  most  likely 
point  and  source  of  trouble.  The  general  assembly  be 
came  the  forum  for  a  part  of  the  discussion  for  a  solution 
of  the  apparent  danger.  To  the  old  idea  of  transporta 
tion  in  1850  was  added  that  of  re-enslavement  referred  to 
in  the  two  grand  jury  presentments  quoted  above.  One 

*Report  published  in  the  Black  River  Watchman  (Sumter),  Dec. 
21,  1850. 

"[Legislative  news  notes,  Charleston  Courier,  Nov.  25,  1858. 
IMS.  records  of  Union  county. 
SMS.  records  of  Newberry  county. 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  189 

plan  was  transportation  with  re-enslavement  as  the  alter 
native;  another  was  to  make  enslavement  the  penalty  for 
crimes  not  now  capital  for  free  negroes;  still  another  was 
complete  and  entire  re-enslavement,  allowing  the  colored 
freeman  to  choose  his  master,  while  some  desired  them  all 
to  be  sold  indiscriminately.  Bills  embodying  all  of  these 
different  views  were  introduced  but  nothing  further  than 
discussion  came  of  them.  Old  negroes  of  that  day  who  are 
still  living  recall  the  talk  of  this  time  about  re-enslavirig 
the  free  negro  and  feel  now  that  this  agitation  was  taken 
advantage  of  by  the  white  man  to  hold  it  over  the  head 
of  the  colored  freeman  as  a  threat. 

There  was  a  general  feeling  prevalent  that  the  free  negro 
was  an  anomaly,  that  he  prevented  the  homogeneity  of 
slavery  as  an  industrial  institution  or  system  of  paternal 
control.  He  was  neither  citizen  nor  dependent  of  the  state. 
This  was  at  least  one  reason  for  the  agitation.  The  slave 
owner  felt  him  as  a  competitive  producer.  The  class  of 
non-slaveholding  whites  assisted  in  maintaining  the  system 
of  slavery  for  they  felt  that  there  was  no  other  adequate 
system  of  controlling  this  heterogeneous  mass  of  racially 
degraded  class  of  the  population;  naturally  they  felt  that 
the  colored  freeman  did  not  come  under  this  controlling 
power  and  was  a  menace  to  the  welfare  and  peace  of  the 
community. 

To  this  must  be  added  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  ques 
tion  by  outsiders  which  provoked  the  people  into  state 
ments  not  accurately  representative  of  the  feeling  of  the 
people  at  large  or  the  general  public  sentiment. 


190  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 


CONCLUSION 

One  of  the  striking  things  about  slavery  in  South  Caro 
lina  was  the  conservatism  of  the  superior  race  toward  any 
substantial  modification  of  the  institution.  Amended,  of 
course,  from  time  to  time,  the  code  of  1740  remained  for 
one  hundred  and  twenty  years  the  organic  slave  law  of 
the  state.  However,  the  system  of  slavery,  which  was  crude 
in  its  beginnings,  slowly,  underwent  changes  that  marked 
its  development  and  gave  to  it  a  fixed  form  as  a  social  and 
economic  organisation.  A  good  illustration  of  this  growth 
is  the  evolution  of  the  patrol.  Many  of  these  modifica 
tions  both  in  legal  enactment  and  practical  operation  were 
in  the  direction  of  an  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the 
blacks:  kidnapping  of  free  negroes,  at  first  not  prohibited, 
was  later  made  a  crime;  the  murder  of  a  negro  by  a  white 
person,  which  until  1821  was  punishable  only  by  a  fine 
and  imprisonment,  was  after  that  made  a  capital  offense; 
the  court  for  the  trial  of  negroes  was  modified  so  as  to 
prevent  some  of  the  glaring  injustice  of  the  earlier  proced 
ure;  privileges  of  trading  and  hiring  their  time  were  legally 
denied  to  slaves,  but  as  time  went  on  apparently  the  viola 
tions  of  these  laws  became  more  common  and  were  passed 
unnoticed.  On  the  other  hand  some  of  the  changes,  in 
so  far  as  granting  the  inferior  race  advantage  were  concern 
ed,  were  reactionary:  manumission,  unrestricted  until  1800, 
had  after  that  to  be  brought  about  by  legal  permission, 
and  was  prohibited  entirely  in  1820;  strictures  on  the  free 
negroes  prohibiting  their  entrance  into  the  state  and  even 
proposing  their  re-enslavement  became  more  marked  as 
time  went  on;  at  first  the  whites  were  forbidden  to  teach 
slaves  to  write,  and  later  as  the  result  of  the  abolition  move 
ment  they  were  also  forbidden  to  teach  them  to  read. 

The  explanation  of  this  conservatism  is  to  be  found 
chiefly  in  the  need  of  an  adequate  police  control  for  the 
inferior  race  which  slavery  provided.  The  financial  in 
terests  of  the  large  planters  are  sufficient  to  explain  why 
they  sought  to  perpetuate  such  a  system  of  labor.  But 
why  should  the  non-slaveholders,  who  formed  the  majority 


Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina  191 

of  the  white  population,  have  assisted  in  upholding  and  main 
taining  the  slavery  status  of  the  negro  with  its  attendant 
inconveniences,  such  as  patrol  service,  when  they  must 
have  been  aware  in  some  measure  at  least  that  as  an  eco 
nomic  regime  it  was  a  hindrance  to  their  progress?  Was 
it  not  because  they  felt  that  their  personal  security  and 
that  of  their  families  depended  upon  an  arrangement 
which  gave  the  superior  race  a  means  of  control  that  they 
imagined  could  not  be  evolved  with  the  inferior  race  living 
under  any  other  status?  The  horror  inspired  by  the  pos 
sibility  of  any  great  number  of  unattached  negroes  found 
expression  in  the  newspaper  criticisms  of  the  conduct  of 
the  free  negroes. 

In  this  study  of  South  Carolina  slavery  the  writer  has 
found  nothing  to  indicate  that  there  was  any  movement 
or  any  serious  discussion  of  the  advisability  of  abolishing 
slavery  or  devising  any  plan  that  would  eventually  lead 
to  it.  Apparently  no  anti-slavery  leaders  like  those  in 
Virginia  or  North  Carolina  ever  flourished  in  South  Caro 
lina.  The  Quakers,  who  were  opposed  to  slavery,  left  the 
state  in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  or  gave 
up  their  scruples  about  it.  The  German  settlers  in  Orange- 
burg  and  Lexington  districts  sought  to  abstain  from  slavery 
but  drifted  with  the  current  and  became  slaveholders. 
Some  doubtless  deprecated  slavery  in  an  academic  way, 
and  some  even  maintained  in  practice  their  belief  that 
slavery  was  wrong.  Whether  there  was  no  tendency 
toward  agitation  or  public  sentiment  suppressed  it,  would 
be  difficult  to  determine.  There  is  little  reason  to  believe 
that  such  discussion  would  have  secured  an  intelligent 
hearing. 

There  was  a  decided  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  benevo 
lently  disposed  before  1830  to  better  the  condition  of  the 
negroes  by  religious  teaching  and  by  encouraging  the  owners 
to  allow  them  such  privileges  as  would  be  consistent  with 
their  relation  to  the  whites.  Some,  like  Judge  O'Neall, 
favored  an  opportunity  being  allowed  for  the  emancipation 
of  exceptionally  worthy  slaves.  But  the  abolition  inter 
ference  from  the  outside  checked  every  movement  that 
had  any  suggestion  of  progress  in  this  direction,  and  set  a 


192  Control  of  Slaves  in  South  Carolina 

social  stigma  and  legal  punishment  upon  him  who  was  so 
imprudent  as  to  call  in  question  any  feature  of  the  character 
istically  Southern  institution. 

It  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  if  there  had  been  no  outside 
meddling  South  Carolina  slavery  would  have  been  very 
much  modified.  The  presumption  is  decidedly  the  other 
way,  for  the  slave  had  not  become  less  valuable  to  the  slave 
holder  toward  the  close  of  the  slavery  period,  as  was  the 
case  in  Virginia  and  North  Carolina.  In  most  respects 
South  Carolina  was  at  one  with  the  gulf  states  in  her  atti 
tude  toward  slavery  and  her  policy  in  controlling  the 
inferior  race,  as  well  as  in  her  financial  interest  in  slavery. 

Something  has  already  been  said  as  to  the  distribution 
of  the  slaves  over  the  state.  Slavery  conditions  in  the 
uplands  were  not  the  same  as  in  the  lowlands.  In  the 
former  the  prevailing  rule  was  a  small  farm  with  few  slaves, 
the  owner  usually  living  on  the  farm  with  his  slaves,  and 
the  white  population  in  the  community  outnumbered 
the  blacks.  In  the  lowlands  the  large  plantation  with 
many  negroes  under  an  overseer  and  few  whites  was  the 
type.  Possibly,  then,  South  Carolina  represented  practi 
cally  every  variety  of  condition  in  which  negroes  lived  in 
the  South.  Again  it  will  be  seen  that  Charleston  afforded 
a  most  interesting  variety  of  conditions  under  which  the 
Carolina  negro  lived.  The  free  negro,  the  slave  who  was 
allowed  to  hire  his  time,  the  slave  under  partial  restriction, 
the  slave  under  complete  oversight  of  the  master — each 
of  these  classes  was  represented.  It  is  to  be  admitted  that 
Charleston  was  not  entirely  successful  in  the  control  of 
these  classes  but  afforded  a  curious  combination  of  pro- 
gressiveness  and  conservatism  from  which  either  those 
who  desired  further  restrictions  or  those  who  advocated 
a  more  liberal  policy,  could  draw  illustrations. 


Appendix  193 

APPENDIX 


Documents  Illustrative  of  Slavery  in  South  Carolina 

(i) 
DEED  OF  MANUMISSION 

Deed  Book  C,  page  190,  Clerk  of  Court's  office,  Marion  County. 
Martin,  James         ) 
Emancipates  Rose  j 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents  That  I  James  Martin  of  Marion 
District  now  in  my  proper  memory  &  senses  do  of  my  own  free  will  & 
desire  emancipate  &  set  free  my  negroe  woman  named  Rose  &  I  do 
by  these  presents  discharge  &  forever  renounce  any  right  title  or  claim 
to  the  said  Negroe  woman  named  Rose  &  I  James  Martin  do  nominate 
and  appoint  Elias  Martin  &  Thomas  Collins  as  guardians  for  the  safe 
protection  &  carrying  into  Execution  this  my  free  will  &  desire. 

Given  under  my  hand  &  seal  this  sixteenth  day  of  December  in 
the  year  1805. 

Signd  seald  &  deliverd  in  the  presents  of 

Thomas  Barns.  his 

Dredzels  Reynolds.  James  x  Martin. 

mark 

The  State  of  South  Carolina  ) 
Marion  District  ) 

Before  me  Robert  Hodges  Justice  Quorum  for  said  District  personally 
appeared  Thomas  Barnes  &  made  oath  that  he  saw  James  Martin 
make  his  mark  to  the  within  instruement  of  writing  &  deliver  the  same 
to  the  within  namd  Rose  also  that  he  saw  Dredzel  Reynolds  subscribe 
his  name  as  wittness  with  himself  to  the  same. 

Sworn  to  before  me  this  16th  day  of  December  1805. 

Robert  Hodges  R  Thomas  Barnes. 

We  hereby  certify  upon  the  Examination  on  Oath  of  James  Martin 
the  Owner  of  a  certain  Slave  named  Rose  a  black  woman  about  nine 
teen  or  twenty  years  of  age  &  satisfactory  proof  has  been  given  to  us 


194  Appendix 

that  the  Said  Slave  is  of  a  good  character  and  is  able  &  capable  of  gain 
ing  a  livelihood  by  honest  Means. 

Witness  our  hand  this  16th  day  of  December,  1805. 
Recorded  24th  December  1805  &  Examined  by 

his 
Thomas  x  Collins.       Sam  Cooper,  Regr. 

mark 

his  Robert  Hodges,  J.  P. 

John  x  Altman. 

mark  Thos.  Barnes. 

his 

Elias  x  Martin.          Dredzels  Reynolds, 
mark 


(2) 
GUARDIANSHIP  OF  FREE  NEGRO 

Record  Book  "Guardian  of  Free  Negroes"  Office  of  Clerk  of  Court 
Sumter  County.     [One  document  of  many  taken  at  random.] 
South  Carolina  ) 
Sumter  District  ) 

I  do  hereby  certify  that  I  have  known  James  Gayman  a  free  man  of 
color  for  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  and  that  as  far  as  has  come  within  my 
knowledge  or  belief  he  is  of  a  good  character  and  correct  habits,  this 
28th  Sept.,  1835. 

/.   N.  Cantey. 

South  Carolina  ) 
Sumter  District  j 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I  Jared  N.  Cantey,  a  free  holder 
of  the  District  and  state  aforesaid  do  hereby  accept  of  the  guardian 
ship  of  James  Gayman,  a  free  man  of  color  above  the  age  of  fifteen 
years  and  who  now  lives  and  resides  in  the  district  of  Sumter. 
28th  Sept.  1835. 

In  presence  of  J.   N.  Cantey. 

Jas.  M.  Dargan. 

(3) 
BILL  OF  SALE  OF  SLAVES 

Deed  Book  N  page  140.     Clerk  of  Court's  Office  Marlborough  County 

State  of  South  Carolina  ) 

Marlborough  District       j 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  I  Joseph  L.  Reid  of  the  State 
of  North  Carolina  Moor  County  have  this  3rd  day  of  February,  1829, 
Sold  bargained  and  delivered  and  by  these  presents  do  bargain  Sell 


Appendix  195 

and  deliver  unto  William  Adams  Senior  of  the  District  aforesaid  a 
certain  Negro  woman  named  Amey  aged  about  twenty-five  years, 
together  with  her  two  children  named  Lydia  and  Rhody  the  eldest 
aged  about  two  years  and  the  youngest  aged  about  eight  months  which 
negroes  I  do  hereby  warrant  and  forever  defend  unto  the  said  William 
Adams  his  heirs  Executors  and  administrators  free  from  the  lawful 
claim  or  claims  of  any  person  or  persons  whatsoever,  And  further  I 
do  warrant  the  before  mentioned  negroes  to  be  sound  and  healthy  free 
from  sickness  and  infirmities,  And  it  is  hereby  acknowledged,  that  I 
have  this  day  received  the  sum  of  Three  Hundred  and  Seventy-five 
dollars  in  full  payment  for  said  negroes  the  receipt  and  payment  whereof 
is  hereby  fully  Acknowledged  to  be  paid  and  received. 

In  Wittness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  Seal  day  and 
date  first  above  written. 

In  presence  of  Alex.  McLeod.  Joseph  L.  Reid  [L.  S.] 

Nelson  Gibson. 

State  of  South  Carolina  ) 
Marlborough  District       j 

Personally  appeared  before  Nelson  Gibson  who  after  being  duly 
sworn  on  the  Holy  Evangelists  of  Almighty  God  Saith  on  Oath  that  he 
did  see  Joseph  L.  Reid  Sign  Seal  and  deliver  the  within  instruement  of 
writing  to  William  Adams  Senr.  for  the  use  and  purpose  therein  Men 
tioned  and  that  himself  and  Alexander  McLeod  in  the  presence  of  each 
other  affixed  their  names  as  Wittnesses  to  the  due  execution  thereof. 

Sworn  to  and  assigned  before  me  this  5th  day  of  May  1829. 

Jonathan  Adams.     Nelson  Gibson. 
J.  P.  [L.  S.] 


4 
CONTRACT    BETWEEN    SLAVE    OWNER    AND    OVERSEER 

[MS.   preserved  in  South  Carolina  Historical  Society  Collection.] 

Articles  of  Agreement  between  John  Ball  and  John  Penny  made  the 
1st  day  of  January,  1813 — 

Article  1st.  John  Ball  agrees  to  pay  John  Penny  at  the  rate  of  five 
hundred  Dollars  per  year  for  wages  as  Overseer  and  Manager  of  both 
Hyde  Park  and  Kensington  plantations. 

2nd.  John  Ball  will  allow  John  Penny  one-third  of  the  hogs  and  one- 
third  of  the  Poultry  raised  on  Hyde  Park  plantation — provided  he 
continues  the  whole  year  in  the  employ  of  John  Ball. 

3rd.  John  Penny  shall  have  the  privilege  of  keeping  two  horses  of 
his  own  on  said  plantation  to  be  fed  only  with  rice  flour  &  straw— and 
Oats  when  he  raises  some  on  the  place — 

4th.  John  Ball  will  allow  John  Penny  the  use  of  two  milch  cows 
for  milking. 


196  Appendix 

5th.  John  Penny  finding  his  own  cook  will  be  allowed  at  the  rate 
of  seventy  Dollars  for  her. 

6th.  John  Ball  will  ever  reserve  to  himself  the  right  to  discharge 
and  turn  off  John  Penny  at  any  time  of  the  year  if  he  gets  drunk,  or 
improperly  abuses  his  trust — or  mal-treat  the  Negroes  under  his  care — 
And  if  that  should  unfortunately  be  the  case — John  Ball  will  only  pay 
for  the  time  actually  served  at  the  above  mentioned  rate  &  in  the  same 

way  for  his  Cook  £  boy,  as  they  will  of  course  go  with  him 

And  the  shares  in  the  Hogs  and  Poultry  will  not  then  be  allowed  to 
John  Penny 

John  Penny  will  be  allowed  a  boy  to  wait  him  &  allso  bread  kind  of 

the  Plantation  for  his  use 

J.  W.  Ball. 
John  Penny. 

(5) 
CERTIFICATE  OF  BEING  WHITE 

Deed  Book  C,  page  156,  Marion  County  Clerk  of  Court's  Office. 

State  of  South  Carolina,  Georgetown  District: 
Catian  Drigers  ) 
her  Affidavit      j 

Personally  appeared  before  me  Philip  Bethea  one  of  Justices  of  the 
peace  for  said  district  Catian  Drigers  who  being  duly  sworn  on  the 
holy  Evangelist  of  Almighty  God  saith  that  she  knew  pilisha  Bruinton 
many  years  and  known  her  always  to  pass  for  a  white  woman  and  be 
lieves  her  to  be  an  English  woman  &  clar  of  any  Negro  blood  Indian 
or  Mulatto. 

Sworn  to  before  me  and  assigned  this  7th  of  May,  1785. 

her 

Phil  Bethea  Catian  x  Drigers. 

mark 

Recorded  27th  of  December,  1805,  and  examined  by  Sam  Cooper 
Regrs. 


6 
PETITION  OF   FREE  NEGRO  TO   RE-ENTER  SLAVERY 

Note:  The  following  is  one  of  at  least  three  petitions  that  were 
before  the  Legislature  in  1859  of  free  negroes  desiring  to  re-enter  slavery 
(Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  2,  5,  20,  1859).  Reprinted  by  permission 
from  Documentary  History  of  American  Industrial  Society,  Vol.  II, 
page  163. 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  General 

Assembly  of  South  Carolina: 
The  Humble  petition  of  the  Undersigned  William  Bass,  sheweth  unto 


Appendix  197 

your  honorable  bodies,  that  he  is  a  free  person  of  color,  residing  in  the 
District  of  Marlborough,  in  the  state  aforesaid,  and  that  he  is  desirous 
of  entering  into  the  condition  of  slavery.  That  his  position  as  a  free 
person  of  color,  a  negro,  is  more  degrading  and  involves  more  suffer 
ing  in  this  State,  than  that  of  a  slave  who  is  under  the  care  protection 
and  ownership  of  a  kind  and  good  master.  That  as  a  free  negro,  he 
is  preyed  upon  by  every  sharper  with  whom  he  comes  in  contact,  and 
that  he  is  very  poor,  though  an  able-bodied  man,  and  is  charged  with 
and  punished  for  every  offence  guilty  or  not,  committed  in  the  neigh 
borhood;  that  he  is  without  house  or  home,  and  lives  a  thousand  times 
harder,  and  in  more  destitution,  than  the  slaves  of  many  planters  in  the 
district;  for  these  reasons  and  many  others,  unnecessary  here  to  enumer 
ate,  your  petitioner  prays: 

That  he  be  permitted  by  some  action  of  your  honorable  bodies  to 
become  a  slave  of,  and  owned  by  Mr.  Philip  W.  Pledger,  who  has  con 
sented  to  receive  him  if  he  can  do  so  lawfully  and  who  your  petitioner 
is  confident  will  make  him  a  humane  master  and  protector,  and  who 
owns  his  stepfather  and  some  other  relations. 

his 

William  x  Bass, 
mark 

Signed  in  my  presence  this  December  14,  1859. 

5.  J.  Townsend. 

South  Carolina,  Marlborough  District: 

Personally  appeared  before  me  S.  J.  Townsend  and  make  oath  that 
he  saw  William  Bass  sign  as  his  own  free  will  and  voluntary  act  without 
any  constraint  whatever  the  foregoing  petition,  and  begged  him,  said 
deponent,  to  have  it  presented  to  the  General  Assembly. 

S.  J.  Townsend. 
Sworn  to  before  me  this  December  14,  1859. 

P.  M.  Coll,  Clerk. 

I,  P.  W.  Pledger,  hereby  consent  if  the  Legislature  will  legalize  the 
act,  to  become  the  owner  of  William  Bass,  as  prayed  for  in  the  foregoing 
petition. 

P.  W.  Pledger. 

Signed  in  my  presence  December  14,  1859. 

S.  J.  Townsend. 


198  Appendix 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


I.     SECONDARY  SOURCES 

1.     GENERAL  HISTORIES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

All  histories  of  the  United  States  treat  of  slavery  in  a  general  way. 
Of  the  larger  histories  mention  may  be  made  of  those  by  Schouler  (J.  S.), 
Von  Hoist  (H.),  McMaster  (J.  B.), Rhodes  (J.  F.)  and  the  American  Nation 
Series.  Schouler's  "History  of  the  United  States"  is  decidedly  partisan 
and  has  almost  no  good  word  for  the  institution.  This  work  is  concerned 
chiefly  with  the  political  narrative  of  national  history  and  refers  to 
slavery  only  as  a  part  of  that  narrative.  Von  Hoist's  "Constitutional 
History  of  the  United  States"  is  fuller  and  gives  a  better  view  of  the 
social  and  economic  side  of  slavery  in  so  far  as  it  affects  the  political 
movements  of  the  time.  McMaster 's  "History  of  the  People  of  the 
United  States"  undertakes  to  give  an  insight  into  the  every  day  life 
on  the  slave  plantation.  His  facts  are  good,  though  for  the  most  part 
they  leave  the  impression  that  they  are  somewhat  exceptional.  Rhodes' 
"History  of  the  United  States  1850-1877"  is  fuller  and  recites  incidents 
of  slave  life  connected  with  the  slavery  controversy.  "The  American 
Nation"  series,  edited  by  A.  B.  Hart,  is  perhaps  more  fair  and  unbiased 
concerning  slavery  than  any  of  the  others,  and  at  the  same  time  relates 
most  of  the  facts. 

2.    SOUTH  CAROLINA  HISTORY. 
(a)  Histories  of  the  State. 

A  complete  critical  history  of  South  Carolina  remains  to  be  written. 
McCrady's  (E.)  work,  published  within  the  last  ten  years,  consists  of 
four  volumes,  one  dealing  with  the  Proprietary  government  to  1719; 
a  second  deals  with  the  Royal  government  of  the  colony  to  1776;  the 
last  two  volumes  bring  the  account  through  the  Revolutionary  period 
to  1783.  This  magnificent  work  is  well  known  and  will  always  be  an 
authority  on  that  period.  Hewat's  (Alex.)  "History  of  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia"  is  the  oldest,  bearing  1779  as  the  year  of  its  imprint.  It 
was  fairly  good  for  the  time  but  is  now  recognized  as  not  having  very 
great  value.  It  was  reprinted  by  Carroll  (B.  R.  )  in  1836  under  the 
title  "Historical  Collections  of  South  Carolina,"  in  which  an  effort 
was  made  to  correct  errors  in  the  former  edition.  Ramsay's  (D.) 
History  of  South  Carolina  in  two  volumes,  published  in  1809,  is  still 
read  but  its  chief  interest  is  in  war  and  Indian  stories.  The  second  vol 
ume,  however,  is  devoted  in  part  to  biographical  sketches  and  a  dis 
cussion  of  the  life  and  industries  of  the  people.  He  relies  largely  upon 


Appendix  199 

Hewat.  Robert  Mills,  in  1826,  published  his  "Statistics  of  South  Caro 
lina,"  containing  bits  of  general  information  as  to  the  resources,  animals, 
plants  and  geography  of  the  state.  W.  J.  Rivers,  in  1856,  in  his  "Sketch 
of  the  History  of  South  Carolina,"  blazed  the  way  for  real  historical 
work  in  this  field.  It  is  based  on  careful  research  and  shows  an  ap 
preciation  by  the  author  of  the  value  of  his  sources.  More  than  one- 
third  of  the  book  is  taken  up  with  the  appendix  composed  of  reprints 
of  valuable  documents.  This  was  followed  by  the  same  author  in 
1874  with  another  effort,  in  a  pamphlet,  "Chapter  in  Early  History  of 
South  Carolina,"  in  which  the  author  indicates  the  proper  lines  for 
further  investigation.  In  1860  appeared  W.  G.  Simms'  "History  of 
South  Carolina"  intended  apparently  to  be  a  handbook  on  the  history 
of  the  state  based  on  other  secondary  works.  It  brings  the  full  account 
down  through  the  Revolutionary  War  but  adds  a  supplementary 
chapter  of  forty-five  pages  dealing  with  the  period  down  to  1860. 
The  history  of  a  section  appeared  in  1859  with  Logan's  (J.  H.)  "History 
of  Upper  South  Carolina."  It  extends  only  to  the  Revolutionary 
War,  consisting  of  a  narrative  of  incident  and  fact.  The  second  vol 
ume  was  never  published;  the  manuscript  is  in  the  possession  of  the 
University  of  Wisconsin. 

(b)  Monographs  on  South  Carolina  History. 

Among  the  later  day  monographs  on  some  phase  of  South  Carolina 
history  must  be  mentioned  the  excellent  piece  of  work  by  E.  L.Whitney, 
in  the  Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Studies  (Ser.  13,  Nos.  1  &  2,  1895),  "Govern 
ment  of  the  South  Carolina  Colony,"  which  undertakes  to  study  the 
organic  development  of  colonial  governmental  policy  of  this  particular 
colony.  The  same  author  has  made  an  exhaustive  bibliographical 
study  of  the  colonial  history  of  South  Carolina  (Amer.  Hist.  Ass'n 
Reports,  1894,  pp.  563-586).  We  are  indebted  to  him  for  a  critical 
estimate  of  the  work  done  in  South  Carolina  history  up  to  the  time  of 
his  writing.  Whitney's  work  on  Colonial  Government  has  been  done 
over  again  by  D.  D.  Wallace  in  a  doctoral  dissertation  at  Vanderbilt 
in  1899,  "Constitutional  History  of  South  Carolina  from  1725  to  1775." 
The  author  undertakes  by  a  careful  study  from  the  Journals  of  the 
Assembly  to  show  the  constant  assertion  of  influence  of  the  Commons 
Assembly  in  governmental  affairs.  The  Justin  Winsor  prize  essay 
in  1900  (A.  Hist.  Ass'n  Rep'ts,  1900,  Vol.  I,  pp.  243-463),by  W.A.Schaper, 
is  a  careful  study  of  "Sectionalism  in  South  Carolina,"  showing  how  the 
upper  section  of  the  state  secured  to  itself  recognition  by  representation 
in  the  lower  house  of  the  Assembly.  Soon  after  the  appearance  of 
McCrady's  History  there  appeared  another  work  by  W.  Roy  Smith, 
"South  Carolina  as  a  Royal  Province."  Of  a  later  period,  D.  F.  Hous 
ton's  valuable  study  of  "Nullification  in  South  Carolina,"  in  the  Har 
vard  Historical  Studies  (No.  3),  must  not  be  passed  over. 


200  Appendix 

(c)  County  Histories. 

Several  of  the  different  localities  of  the  state  have  had  their  stories 
told  in  "County  Histories."  These  usually  consist  of  interesting 
narratives  of  incident  and  reminiscence,  and  genealogical  tables. 
While  most  of  the  facts  are  fairly  reliable,  still  as  a  class  they  cannot  be 
said  to  be  of  great  historical  value.  Exception  must  be  made  of 
A.  S.  Salley's  "History  of  Orangeburg  County,"  and  Bishop  Alex. 
Gregg's  "History  of  the  Old  Cheraws,"  which  show  the  handiwork  of 
the  critical  scholar  who  has  some  appreciation  of  the  relation  of  cause 
and  effect.  They  are  all  disappointing  in  their  almost  total  lack  of 
mention  of  slavery.  A  mention  of  the  authors  and  titles  will  have  to 
suffice:  Judge  O'Neall,  "Annals  of  Newberry,"  completed  before  the 
war  between  the  sections.  It  was  afterwards  reprinted  and  the  ac 
count  brought  down  to  about  1890  by  Jno.  A.  Chapman.  Sellers 
(W.  W.),"A  History  of  Marion  County."  Thomas  (J.  A.  W.),"A  History 
of  Marlborough."  Landrum  (J.  B.  O.),  "History  of  Spartanburg 
County."  The  same  author  has  compiled  a  "Colonial  and  Revolution 
ary  History  of  Upper  South  Carolina,"  a  rather  pretentious  title  for 
the  actual  results  attained.  Kirkland  (T.  J.)  &  Kennedy  (R.  M.), 
"Historic  Camden."  The  authors  promise  a  later  volume  that  will 
bring  the  account  down  from  about  1800  to  the  present.  In  this 
connection  must  also  be  mentioned  Mrs.  Ravenel's  (St.  Julien)  at 
tractive  little  book,  "Charleston,  the  Place  and  the  People." 

(d)  Biography. 

The  list  here  given  is  not,  nor  is  it  intended  to  be,  exhaustive  but 
most  of  the  persons  whose  biographies  are  here  referred  to  had  some 
connection  with  the  institution  of  slavery.  At  the  head  of  the  list  for 
historical  value  stands  Theo.  D.  Jervey's  recent  "Robery  Y.  Hayne 
and  his  Times."  The  life  of  another  noted  Carolinian,  Wm.  Lowndes, 
is,  considering  the  available  sources,  very  well  written  by  Mrs.  St. 
Julien  Ravenel.  Three  biographies  of  Calhoun  may  be  mentioned, 
one  by  Jenkins,  another  by  Van  Hoist;  the  latest  and  perhaps  best  is 
that  by  Gaillard  Hunt  in  the  Crisis  Series.  The  correspondence  of 
Calhoun  has  been  edited  by  Jameson  (Amer.  Hist.  Ass' n  Reports,  1899, 
Vol.  2)  and  the  papers  of  Calhoun  by  Cralle.  Mrs.  H.  H.  Ravenel  has 
given  us  a  generous  insight  into  the  life  and  times  of  Mrs.  Eliza  Lucas 
Pinckney,  one  of  the  most  interesting  of  pre- Revolutionary  women. 
Trent's  (W.  P.)  "Life  of  W.  G.  Simms"  is  interesting  not  only  in  the  life 
of  one  who  was  prominently  connected  with  Carolina  affairs  but  also 
in  the  coloring  it  lends  to  Carolina  slavery.  Wightman's  (W.  M.) 
biography  of  William  Capers  is  the  life  of  the  first  superintendent  of 
the  Methodist  missions  to  the  slaves;  but  few  authoritative  references 
are  given.  W.  H.  Trescot  gives  us  a  picture  of  the  writer  of  the  famous 
minority  report  to  the  Legislature  in  1856  on  the  re-opening  of  the  slave 
trade,  in  a  pamphlet," Memorial  of  J.  J.  Pettigru."  Judge  J.  B.  O'Neall's 
"Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,"  an  ante-bellum  two-volume 


Appendix  201 

publication,  gives  readable  sketches  of  the  judges  and  leading  lawyers 
of  the  state  during  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

(e)  Histories  of  Religious  Denominations. 

For  collecting  data  on  religious  privileges  allowed  to  slaves  recourse 
was  had  to  a  few  histories  of  denominations  in  the  state.  Howe's 
"History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  South  Carolina"  is  exhaustive 
and  apparently  an  accurate  piece  of  work,  though  it  is  disappointing 
as  to  mention  of  the  negro.  Dalcho's  (F.)  "Church  History  of  South 
Carolina,"  published  in  1820,  is  an  account  based  on  liberal  quotations 
from  official  sources  of  the  Episcopal  church;  it  gives  an  account  of  the 
early  efforts  to  evangelize  the  Southern  slave.  Bernheim's  "German 
Settlements  and  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  Carolinas"  is  also  worthy 
of  recognition,  though  no  mention  is  made  of  slavery.  A.  M.  Shipp's 
"History  of  Methodism  in  South  Carolina"  is  a  good  authority  on  the 
subject;  it  gives  full  information  from  original  sources  of  the  work  of 
that  denomination  among  the  colored  population.  Tupper's  (H.  A.) 
collection  into  one  volume  of  a  series  of  papers,  "History  of  the  First 
Baptist  Church  of  South  Carolina,"  read  at  the  bicentenary  of  that 
church,  refers  to  work  among  the  slaves.  But  by  far  the  best  secondary 
source  on  the  religious  life  of  the  negro,  though  few  authorities  are 
cited,  is  W.  P.  Harrison's  "The  Gospel  among  the  Slaves."  After 
giving  space  to  a  sketch  from  C.  C.  Jones'  "The  Religious  Instruction 
of  Slaves"  (noticed  below)  a  full  account  is  given  of  the  early  Methodist 
missionaries  to  the  slaves.  Perhaps  its  best  feature  is  the  local  color 
it  gives  to  slave  life. 

(f)  Maps. 

For  maps  the  most  easily  available  and  perhaps  best  are  Mills, 
"Atlas  of  South  Carolina,"  published  in  1825,  and  Carey,  "American 
Atlas,"  published  in  1823. 

3.    SLAVERY— SECONDARY  SOURCES. 
(a)  Monograph  Literature. 

(1)  Specific — Limited  in  Scope. 

For  comparison  of  the  institution  of  slavery  and  the  status  of 
the  negro  in  South  Carolina  with  that  of  other  states  recourse  may 
be  had  to  some  excellent  monograph  literature  on  slavery.  The  at 
tempt  to  study  slavery  as  limited  by  state  lines  began  with  Brackett's 
(J.R.)"The  Negro  in  Maryland"(Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Studies,  Extra  Vol. 
VI.,  published  in  1889),  giving  its  legal  and  practical  workings.  We  then 
have  a  shorter  and  less  complete  work  on  the  "History  of  Slavery  in  North 
Carolina,"  by  J.  S.  Bassett  (J.  H.  U.  Studies,  XVII,  Nos.  7  &  8,  1899); 
also  "Anti-Slavery  Leaders  of  North  Carolina"  (J.  H.  U.  Studies,  XVI, 
No.  6),  by  the  same  author.  J.  C.  Ballagh's  "History  of  Slavery  in 
Virginia"  (J.  H.  U.  Studies,  Extra  Vol.  XXIV),  while  it  is  an  accurate 
and  thorough  piece  of  work  on  the  legal  side  of  slavery,  has  very  little 


202  Appendix 

to  say  of  the  practical  workings  of  the  system.  H.  S.  Cooley  has  given 
a  necessarily  short  but  good  study  of  slavery  in  New  Jersey  (J.  H.  U. 
Studies,  14th  Series.  IX  &  X).  N.  D.  Harris  has  given  us  an  account  of 
the  status  of  the  negro  as  an  "indentured  servant"  in  a  Northern  state 
in  "The  History  of  Negro  Servitude  in  Illinois."  It  furnishes  also  a 
study  of  the  growth  of  abolitionism  there  and  its  influence  in  the  develop 
ment  of  political  parties  in  the  Northwest.  A  similar  piece  of  work 
noted  for  the  extensiveness  of  the  sources  examined  is  E.  R.  Turner's 
"The  Negro  in  Pennsylvania,"  the  Justin  Winsor  prize  essay  for  1910. 
W.  S.  Drury's  rather  tedious  but  worthy  monograph  on  the  Southamp 
ton  Insurrection  contains  a  complete  narrative  of  the  Nat  Turner 
rebellion,  the  most  noted  slave  insurrection  in  the  South.  W.  E.  B. 
DuBois  contributes,  in  the  Harvard  Historical  Studies  (IV),  an  accurate 
and  exhaustive  study  on  "The  Suppression  of  the  Foreign  Slave  Trade 
to  the  United  States  of  America."  In  a  smaller  and  less  exhaustive 
way  W.  H.  Collins  has  undertaken  to  throw  some  light  on  another  in 
teresting  phase  of  slavery  in  "Domestic  Slave  Trade  of  the  Southern 
States."  S.  B.  Weeks,  in  "Southern  Quakers  and  Slavery"  (J.  H.  U. 
Studies,  Extra  Vol.  XV),  has  one  chapter  on  slavery,  the  rest  being  de 
voted  to  a  study  of  the  Quaker,  a  sect  always  opposed  to  the  slavery 
system.  The  second  chapter  of  M.  B.  Hammond's  "The  Cotton 
Industry"  has  a  penetrating  study  of  the  relation  of  the  rise  of  the  cotton 
industry  to  the  growth  of  slavery.  Mary  S.  Locke's  monograph  "Anti- 
Slavery  in  America  from  the  Introduction  of  African  Slaves  to  the 
Prohibition  of  the  Slave  Trade"  is  worthy  of  mention.  A  "History 
of  Liberia,"  by  J.  H.  T.  McPherson  (J.  H.  U.  Studies,  Ser.  9,  No.  10) 
has  something  to  say  of  the  colonization  movement  in  America. 

(2)  More  General  Works  on  Slavery. 

U.  B.  Phillips,  in  two  volumes  of  the  "Documentary  Economic  History 
of  American  Industrial  Society,"  has  reprinted  a  quantity  of  source 
material  on  slavery  while  but  few  of  the  documents  are  local  Carolina 
sources.  Part  V  of  H.  V.  Ames'  "State  Documents  on  Federal  Re 
lations"  contains  reprints  and  citations  of  numerous  valuable  original 
sources  on  slavery.  G.  S.  Merriman's  "The  Negro  and  the  Nation" 
is  a  series  of  interesting  chapters  on  the  varied  phases  of  the  negro 
question  written  in  a  popular  style.  H.  Wilson's  "Rise  and  Fall  of  the 
Slave  Power  in  America,"  published  in  1875,  undertakes  to  trace  from 
the  Northern  standpoint  the  growth  of  slavery  and  the  controversial 
agitation  which  it  brought  on,  with  abundant  illustrative  material. 
A  similar  work  is  the  "Political  History  of  Slavery,"  by  W.  H.  Smith, 
in  which  large  place  is  given  to  the  politically  controversial  side  of 
slavery.  Neither  of  the  last  two  mentioned  have  really  contributed 
anything  of  value  to  the  subject.  The  last,  on  the  whole  the  best,  fair 
presentation  of  the  subject,  though  small  in  compass,  is  A.  B.  Hart's 
"Slavery  and  Abolition"  in  the  American  Nation  series.  R.  I.  Mallard's 
"Plantation  Life  before  Emancipation,"  published  in  1892,  is  a  narrative 


Appendix  203 

of  recollections  of  conditions  during  the  Slavery  period,  one  chapter 
being  devoted  to  slave  life  in  South  Carolina.  Similar  to  this  is  I.  E. 
Lowery's  "Life  on  the  Old  Plantation"  (pub.  1911),  being  the  author's 
recollection  of  his  own  life  as  a  slave  boy  in  Carolina. 

(b)  Miscellaneous,  Magazine  Articles,  etc. 

1.  Phillips,  U.  B.     Racial  Problems,  Adjustments  and  Disturbances 

in  the  Ante-Bellum  South,  in  The  South  in  the  Building  of  the 
Nation,  vol.  IV,  pages  198-241. 

A  very  clear  and  readable  short  account  of  almost  every 
phase  of  slavery  in  the  South,  from  its  introduction  to  its  abo 
lition. 

2.  Phillips.  U.  B.     Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Southern  Black  Belt, 

Political  Science  Quarterly,  XXII,  No.  3. 

3.  Phillips,    U.    B.     The   Slave    Labor    Problem    in   the   Charleston 

District,  in  Political   Science   Quarterly,    XXII,    No   3,    pages 
416-439. 

4.  Old  South  Leaflets,  vol.  VI,  No.   140,  Samuel  Hoar's  Expulsion 

from    Charleston.     (Reprints    of    documents    bearing    on    the 
incident.) 

5.  Siebert,  W.  H.     The  Underground  Railroad,  Amer.  Hist.  Review, 

I,  455;  also  Amer.  Hist.  Ass'n  Reports,  1895,  page  395. 

This  author  also  has  gathered  his  studies  into  a  volume,  "The 
Underground  Railroad  from  Slavery  to  Freedom." 

6.  Washington,  Booker  T.     The  Free  Negro  in  Slavery  Days,  Out 

look,  93;  107,  September  18,  1909. 

7.  Tillinghast,  J.  A.     The  Negro  in  Africa  and  America,  Publications 

of  the  American  Economic  Association,  Third  Series,  vol.  Ill, 
No.  2,  part  2. 

8.  McCrady,  E.     Slavery  in  the  Province  of  South  Carolina,  Amer. 

Hist.  Ass'n  Reports,  1895,  page  631. 

9.  — .     Vesey    Plot,   Atlantic    Monthly,   VII,    730-740,    June, 
1861. 

10.  Phillips,   U.   B.     The  Economic  Cost  of  Slaveholding,   Political 

Science  Quarterly,  XX,  257-275. 

4.     SLAVERY  IN  THE  WEST  INDIES. 

In  a  study  for  the  purpose  of  comparison  of  the  origin  of  slave  laws 
on  the  earlier  plantations  of  the  West  Indies  and  the  communities 
of  the  American  continent,  recourse  was  had  to  that  early  (1808)  though 
still  recognized  authority,  Poyer's  "History  of  the  Barbadoes,"  and  the 


204  Appendix 

still  older  (1794)  Edwards'  (B.)  "History,  Civil  and  Commercial  of  the 
British  Colonies  in  the  West  Indies,"  a  large  part  of  which  is  taken  up 
with  a  narrative  of  West  Indian  slavery. 

II.     CONTEMPORANEOUS  SECONDARY  SOURCES 

1.     TRAVELS. 

The  observations  of  travellers  who  had  never  been  in  the  South  until 
the  visit,  an  account  of  which  they  write,  and  who  were  not  unduly 
biased,  form  a  critically  valuable  source  of  descriptive  information  on 
the  peculiarly  Southern  institution.  Among  the  best  known  and  most 
important  is  F.  L.  Olmstead's  "Seaboard  Slave  States."  These  travels, 
written  for  a  New  York  newpsaper  about  1853  and  later  printed  in 
separate  form,  are,  as  compared  with  many  others,  unbiased  observa 
tions  gathered  from  careful  inquiry.  While  his  writings  reveal  much 
of  the  evils  of  slavery  still  he  succeeds  in  telling  much  of  the  good  as 
well  as  the  bad  in  a  perfectly  fair  effort  to  narrate  the  whole  truth. 
"My  Diary,  North  and  South,"  by  W.  H.  Russel,  a  war  correspondent 
of  a  London  paper  about  1863,  during  the  conflict,  is  well  written,  and 
while  its  views  of  slavery  are  certainly  unfavorable  the  only  complaint 
that  can  reasonably  be  made  is  that  probably  he  saw  the  worst  side  of 
it.  G.  W.  Featherstonhaugh,  an  Englishman  who  travelled  in  America 
about  1834,  has  given  his  observations  of  the  evils  of  the  slavery  system 
in  "An  Excursion  Through  the  Slavery  States."  Another  account 
hostile  to  slavery  is  J.  S.  C.  Abbot's  "North  and  South,"  written  about 
1860;  to  his  travels  are  appended  speculations  on  the  situation  and  its 
remedy  which  gives  it  the  coloring  of  pre-conceived  notions.  Alexis 
de  Tocqueville," Democracy  in  America,"  has  a  good  chapter  on  slavery, 
unfavorable  to  it,  but  in  the  main  accurate.  Perhaps  the  least  biased 
and  most  instructive  picture  of  conditions  is  B.  Hall's  "Travels  in 
America,"  1827;  this  Englishman  showed  an  intelligent  and  keen 
insight  as  an  observer.  More  favorable  to  the  South's  view  is  the  inci 
dental  and  almost  accidental  interest  of  the  geologist,  Charles  Lyell, 
on  a  trip  for  geological  study  in  America  during  the  early  forties.  The 
account  of  his  first  trip  gives  only  a  few  pages  to  slavery  in  and  around 
Charleston,  while  his  "Second  Visit  to  the  United  States"  is  full  in  its 
observation  on  slavery  in  Georgia  and  other  Southern  states.  The 
one  important  book  written  by  a  Northerner  which  the  Southern  gentle 
man  could  read  with  no  hurt  feelings  was  Nehemiah  Adams'  "Southside 
View  of  Slavery,"  published  in  1854.  It  appears  that  the  author  had 
preconceived  prejudice  against  slavery  but  the  completeness  of  his 
conversion  arouses  question  as  to  whether  he  was  not  so  thoroughly 
taken  in  hand  by  Southern  hospitality  that  he  had  as  one-sided  a  view 
of  conditions  as  others  whose  views  were  unfavorable.  The  list  of 
travels  which  throw  light  on  Southern  slavery  is  a  fairly  long  one,  but 
these  are  the  best  known  and  perhaps  most  careful  observers. 


Appendix  205 

2.     CONTEMPORARY  WORKS  ON  SLAVERY. 
(a)  Works  Bearing  on  the  Legal  Phase  of  Slavery. 

1.  Cobb,  T.  R.  R.     On  Slavery.     Savannah  and  Philadelphia,  1858. 

Consists  of  two  parts,  the  first  a  historical  summary  of  slavery 
and  its  condition  among  all  peoples  ancient  and  modern;  the 
second  is  a  good  digest  of  the  legal  provisions  concerning  slavery 
as  developed  chiefly  by  court  decisions  of  the  different  states. 
A  very  valuable  handbook  on  the  law  of  slavery. 

2.  Hurd,  J.  H.     The  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage  in  the  United 

States.     New  York,  1858-1862. 

A  sketch  of  the  existing  laws  on  slavery  in  the  different  states 
with  some  brief  comment. 

3.  O'Neall,  J.  B.     The  Negro  Law  of  South  Carolina  Collected  and 

Digested.  Written  "under  a  resolution  of  the  State  Agricul 
tural  Society  of  South  Carolina."  Afterwards  submitted  to  the 
Governor  and  Legislature  but  never  adopted.  1848. 

An  excellent  summary  of  South  Carolina  slave  law  with  court 
interpretations  in  narrative  style,  and  with  notes  and  comment 
and  even  recommendations  as  to  desirable  changes. 

4.  Wheeler,  J.  D.     Law  of  Slavery.     New  Orleans,  1837. 

A  good  compendium  of  extracts  from  the  state  court  decisions 
on  the  subject  of  slavery. 

(b)  Works  on  Slavery,  more  or  less  Controversial. 

1.  Adams,  F.  C.     Manuel  Periera.     London;  no  date  of  publication. 

A  highly  colored  account  of  the  free  negro  arrested  aboard  a 
British  vessel  in  Charleston.  He  makes  out  Manuel  to  be  of 
Spanish  descent. 

2.  American  Colonization  Society  Annual  Reports,  contains  report  of 

work  and  papers  on  the  subject. 

3.  Barnes,   A.     An   Inquiry   into  the   Scriptural  Views  of  Slavery. 

Philadelphia,  1846. 

A  statement  of  the  biblical  arguments  for  slavery. 

4.  Bledsoe,  A.  T.     Liberty  and  Slavery.     Philadelphia,  1856. 

A  scholarly  summing  up  of  the  arguments  on  slavery  from 
scriptural,  natural  and  public  necessity  grounds  in  answer  to 
the  abolitionist  arguments. 

5.  Cairnes,  J.  E.     The  Slave  Power,  Its  Character,  Career  and  Prob 

able  Design.     London,  1863. 

The  arguments  against  slavery  on  economic  grounds. 


206  Appendix 

6.  Carey,    -     .     Slave    Trade,    Domestic    and    Foreign.     Phila 

delphia,  1853. 

Three  suggestive  chapters  on  American  slavery,  accounting 
for  its  origin,  growth  and  probable  future  from  an  economic 
point  of  view. 

7.  Chambers,   Wm.     American  Slavery  and  Color.     London,    1857. 

Written  near  the  close  of  the  slave  regime,  it  deprecates  ad 
vantages  allowed  slavery  in  national  politics.  The  possibility 
of  revolution  is  the  only  hope.  It  has  also  an  extended  ap 
pendix  of  incidents  illustrative  of  the  worst  side  of  slavery. 

8.  Chamerovzow.     Anti-Slavery  Society  Publication.     London,  1855. 

The  usual  autobiographic  account  of  miseries  of  ill  treated 
slaves. 

9.  Channing,  W.  E.     Slavery.     Boston,  1836. 

One  of  the  most  widely  read  books  of  the  anti-slavery  propa 
ganda.  It  is  less  violent  than  other  abolition  literature  and  had 
circulation  even  in  the  South. 

10.  DeBow,  J.  D.  B.     The  Industrial  Resources  of  the  Southern  and 

Western  States,  3  vols.     New  Orleans,  1853. 

The  standard  historical  source  for  the  industrial  and  economic 
study  of  the  ante-bellum  South. 

11.  DeBow's  Review.     New  Orleans,  1846-1861. 

A  magazine  filled  with  the  very  best  of  Southern  thought  on 
Southern  questions.  From  this,  the  work  j ust  cited  was  compiled. 

12.  Drew,  B.     The  Refugee  or  the  Narrative  of  Fugitive  Slaves  in 

Canada.     Boston,  1856. 

A  series  of  experiences  of  escapes  after  cruel  treatment  from 
Southern  states.  Probably  worthless  as  a  historical  source 
except  to  give  coloring  to  certain  facts. 

13.  Fletcher,  -      — .     Studies  in  Slavery.     Natchez,  1852. 

A  labored  abstract  defense  of  slavery  on  scriptural  grounds; 
without  interest  or  value,  that  toward  the  close  degenerates 
into  a  positive  philological  bore. 

14.  Goodwin,    D.   R.     Southern  Slavery  and  its  Prospects.     Phila 

delphia,  1864. 

In  the  nature  of  a  reply  to  an  anti-slavery  publication  by  the 
Bishop  of  Vermont.  It  is  apologetic  of  slavery  on  scriptural 
grounds  and  other  reasons  usually  noted. 

15.  Grayson,  W.  J.     The  Hireling  and  the  Slave.     Charleston,  1856. 

A  pro-slavery  poem. 


Appendix  207 

16.  Grimke,  Sarah.     American  Slavery  as  It  Is.     New  York,  1839. 

"A  chamber  of  horrors,"  containing  clippings,  etc.,  of  the  worst 
cruelties  of  the  system. 

17.  Helper,  H.  R.     The  Impending  Crisis  in  the  South.     New  York, 

1857. 

A  strong  argument  against  slavery,  meant  as  an  appeal  to  the 
Southern  non-slave  holder  to  repudiate  the  system  because  it 
was  industrially  oppressive. 

18.  Jay,  Wm.     Writings  on  Slavery  (containing  also  a  small  volume 

by   the   same   author,    1835,    London,    "Slavery  in  America"). 
Boston,  1853. 

His  summing  up  of  the  legal  and  actual  status  of  the  free  negro 
is  good.  His  accounts  of  the  colonization  and  anti-slavery 
societies  are  more  an  argumentative  summary  than  historical 
narrative. 

19.  Jones,   C.   C.     The   Religious  Instruction  of  the   Negroes.     Sa 

vannah,  1842. 

Part  I  is  a  historical  sketch  showing  the  source  and  progress 
of  the  early  interest  in  the  instruction  of  the  negro.  The  rest 
of  the  book  deals  chiefly  with  the  difficulties  and  needs  of  re 
ligious  instruction.  Well  written,  and  his  facts  seem  to  be  based 
on  good  first  hand  sources,  and  used  with  some  degree  of  critical 
discrimination.  A  good  part  of  the  book  is  devoted  to  religious 
conditions  in  South  Carolina.  The  author  was  a  Presbyterian 
missionary  to  slaves  in  Liberty  county,  Georgia,  and  speaks 
from  a  close  acquaintance. 

20.  Kemble,  F.  A.     Journal  of  a  Residence  on  a  Georgia  Plantation. 

New  York,  1863. 

The  classic  description  of  a  Southern  plantation  with  slavery 
at  its  worst.  There  are  attempts  at  intervals  to  tell  things 
favorable  to  the  institution  but  they  are  rare. 

21.  Mellen,    G.    W.    F.     An   Argument   on   the    Unconstitutionally 

of  Slavery.     Boston,  1841. 

An  effort  made  to  prove  that  there  is  no  basis  of  fact  in  the 
claim  that  the  constitution  guaranteed  slavery.  He  quotes 
at  length  from  pre-revolutionary  writers,  proceedings  of  the 
national  constitutional  convention,  some  of  the  state  conventions 
(not  S.  C.)  called  to  adopt  the  constitution,  the  Federalist  papers 
and  Marshall's  decisions  on  national  subjects,  to  bear  out  his 
argument  and  makes  a  calm  and  good  case. 


208  Appendix 

22.  Paulding,  J.  K.     Slavery  in  the  United  States.     New  York,  1836. 

A  pro-slavery  argument  by  a  Northerner.  His  description 
of  slavery  in  the  South  is  the  slavery  of  Virginia. 

23.  Pollard,  E.  A.     Black  Diamonds  Gathered  in  the  Darkey  Homes 

of  the  South.     New  York,  1859. 

The  lighter  side  of  slave  life  in  incident  and  story,  to  which 
is  added  an  argument  for  the  re-opening  of  the  slave  trade. 

24.  Seabury,  Rev.  Samuel.     American    Slavery.     New  York,   1861. 

A  broad,  scholarly  discussion  going  far  back  in  history.  Fair 
and  critical  in  his  views  of  slavery. 

25.  Thornton,  Rev.  T.  C.     An  Inquiry  into  the  History  of  Slavery; 

Its  Introduction  into  the  United  States;  Cause  of  Its  Contin 
uance,  and  Remarks  upon  the  Abolition  Tracts  of  Wm.  E. 
Channing,  D.  D.  Washington,  1841. 

A  defense  of  slavery  as  it  existed,  from  teachings  of  scripture 
and  history  with  some  discussion  of  phases  of  the  Texas  question. 
Unimportant  as  to  slave  life  and  customs,  mildly  controversial. 

26.  Van  Evrie,  J.  H.,   M.   D.     Negroes  and  Negro  Slavery.     New 

York,    1861. 

A  physiological  study  of  the  ethnography  of  the  negro  in  his 
relation  to  other  races,  with  a  generous  attention  to  the  religious 
argument;  sympathetic  with  the  institution  of  slavery. 

27.  Wallon,  H.     De    1'Esclavage    dans    les    Colonies  pour   servir  d' 

Introduction  a  1'Histoire  de  1'Esclavage  dans  1'Antiquite. 
(3  vols.)  Paris,  1847. 

Makes  no  reference  to  American  slavery,  but  other  works 
on  American  slavery  refer  to  this  for  argument. 

28.  Weston,  G.  M.     The  Progress  of  Slavery  in  the  United  States. 

Washington,  1857. 

An  attempt  to  show  from  a  logical  study  of  slavery  its  hind 
rance  to  the  economic  progress  of  the  country  and  to  point  out 
how  its  spread  through  the  domestic  trade  could  be  hindered 
by  hedging  it  in  with  free  labor,  particularly  in  its  westward  ex 
tension.  The  array  of  statistical  facts  and  his  method  of  pre 
senting  them  are  forcible. 

29.  Welling,  J.    C.     Slavery   in   the   Territories  (Amer.    Hist.   Ass'n 

Reports,  1891,  133).  Originally  written  before  1860.  More 
mention  made  of  the  early  period  of  slavery. 

30.  Wheat,   -       — .     Philosophy  of  Slavery.     Louisville,    1862. 

A  curious  medley  of  theology,  philosophy  and  facts,  highly 
colored  by  the  opening  conflict. 


Appendix  209 

31.     The  Pro-Slavery  Argument — Four  Essays.     Charleston,  1852. 

(1)  By  Chancellor  Harper:     A  strong    abstract  apology  of 
slavery  from  the  Southern  viewpoint. 

(2)  By  Governor  Hammond:     More  practical,  a  good  de 
fense. 

(3)  By  W.  G.  Simms:     A  sarcastic  but  correct  criticism  of 
Miss  Martineau's  Travels  and  Writings  on  Slavery. 

(4)  Prof.    Dew:     One   of   the   strongest   expositions   of  the 
reasons  for  establishing  and  maintaining  the  slavery  system  from 
philosophical,    practical,    social    and    racial    standpoints.     Also 
a  comprehensive  study  of  African  colonization  in  America. 

32. .     Slavery  Vindicated.     Philadelphia,    1836. 

A  simple  and  easily  understood  statement  of  the  South's 
reasons  for  maintaining  slavery  and  the  ills  to  be  expected  from 
emancipation.  Quotes  arguments  from  Harper  and  Dew. 
Similar  pamphlets  to  those  contained  in  the  Pro-slavery  Argu 
ment  had  appeared. 

33.     .     The  South  Vindicated  from  the  Treason  and  Fanati 
cism  of  the  Northern  Abolitionists.     Philadelphia,  1836. 

A  discussion  of  the  seething  controversy,  apolegetic  for  the 
South. 

34,     __,     TI^  Laws  of  Race  as  Connected  with  Slaves.     Phila 
delphia,  1860. 

Clear  and  shows  good  understanding  of  the  whole  question  of 
race,  giving  ills  of  negroes  in  the  North  as  well  as  in  the  South. 

3.     PURELY  ORIGINAL  SOURCES, 
(a)  Pamphlets. 

(1)  On  Slave  Insurrections. 

1.  Slave  Insurrections,  by  Joshua  Coffin.  New  York,  1860. 

Anti-slavery  pamphlets  sketching  briefly  but  inaccurately 
all  slave  insurrectionary  attempts. 

2.  An  Account  of  the  later  Intended  Insurrection  among  a  Portion  of 

the  Blacks  of  this  City.     Published  by  Authority  of  the  Cor 
poration  of  Charleston.     1822. 

3.  Reflections  Occasioned    by  the  Late  Disturbances  in  Charleston, 

by  Achates.     1822.     (Probably  Gen.  Thos.  Pinckney.) 

4.  Pamphlet  composed  of  a  series  of  Articles  on  Slavery  Provoked  by 

the  Vesey  Insurrection  in  1822,  and  first  published  in  the  South 
Carolina  Gazette  in  October  and  November,  1822. 


210  Appendix 

5.  Refutation  of  Calumnies  against  the  Southern  and  Western  States, 

by  a  Carolinian,  1822. 

Among  other  things  it  gives  an  account  of  the  South  Caro 
lina  insurrections.  An  exceptionally  good  source. 

6.  Proceedings  of  the  Citizens  of  Charleston  on  the  Incendiary  Machi 

nations  now  in  Progress  against  the  Peace  and  Welfare  of  the 
Southern  States.  1835. 

Concerning  the  Charleston  post-office  robbery. 

(2)  On  the  Religious  Phase  of  Slavery. 

1.  There  is  a  very  valuable  collection  of  twenty-two  pamphlets  bound 

in  one  volume  on  the  Religious  Instruction  of  Slaves,  in  the 
Collections  of  the  South  Carolina  Historical  Society. 

2.  Proceedings  of  the  meeting  in  Charleston,  May  13-15,   1845,  on 
the  Religious  Instruction  of  the  Negroes,  together  with  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  and  the  Address  to  the  Public. 

A  peculiarly  valuable  source. 

3.  Practical  Considerations,  grounded  on  the  Scriptures,  Relative  to 

the  Slave  Population  in  South  Carolina,  by  Dr.  F.  Dalcho,  of 
the  Episcopal  Church.  Published  in  1822,  according  to  the 
statement  of  C.  C.  Jones.  (Religious  Instruction  of  Negroes,  69). 

4.  Exposition  of  the  View  of  the  Baptists  Relative  to  the  Colored 

Population  of  the  United  States,  by  Rev.  Richard  Furman. 

5.  Slave  Population  of  South  Carolina  (in  its  Religious  Aspect),  by 

a  Carolinian.     1823. 

6.  Review  of  Dr.  Adger's  Sermon  on  the  Religious  Instruction  of  the 

Colored  Population.     Charleston,  1847. 

7.  Episcopal  Catechism  for  Persons  of  Color.     Charleston,   1837, 

(3)  Miscellaneous  Pamphlets. 

1.  Collections  of  Historical  Society  of  South  Carolina,  5  vols.     Extra 

publications.  Contains  annual  addresses  before  the  society, 
papers  on  subjects  in  South  Carolina  history  and  reprints 
of  records. 

2.  A  South  Carolina  Protest  against  Slavery:     Being  a  letter  from 

Henry  Laurens,  Second  President  of  the  Continental  Congress, 
to  his  Son,  Col.  John  Laurens.  Charleston,  Aug.  14,  1776. 

An  explanation  of  his  reason  for  having  introduced  a  bill  in 
the  Legislature  to  prevent  teaching  negroes  to  read  and  write 
and  from  engaging  in  certain  pursuits. 


Appendix  211 

3.  Speech  of  Senator  Smith  in  Congress  in   1820  on  Slavery.     Re 

printed  from  Annals  of  Congress. 

4.  Domestic  Slavery:     Letters  passed  between  Rev.  Richard  Fuller, 

of  Beaufort,  S.  C.,  and  Rev.  Francis  Wayland,  of  Providence, 
R.  I.  Gives  both  sides  of  the  controversy  on  slavery,  from  the 
moral  and  religious  point  of  view.  New  York,  1845. 

5.  Address  by  Edward  Laurens  before   the  Agricultural  Society   of 

South  Carolina.     1832. 

6.  Address  before  the  United  Agricultural  Society  of  South  Carolina, 

by  W.  B.  Seabrook.     Charleston,    1827. 

Considerable  reference  to  slave  management. 

7.  Doom    of   Slavery    in    the    Union.     Speech   by   John   Townsend. 

Charleston,   1860. 

8.  Letter  of  R.  Y.  Harper,  First  Annual  Report  American  Coloniza 

tion  Society. 

9.  Address  of  James  Barbour,  Esq.,  to  the  Agricultural  Society  of 

Albemarle  County,  Virginia.  Reprinted  in  Charleston  Mercury, 
December  12,  1825. 

(b)  Official  Sources. 

(1)  Printed  materials. 

1.  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  12  vols. 

All  the  laws  governing  the  colony  from  the  first  and  enact 
ments  of  the  state  legislature  are  arranged  chronologically 
with  marginal  notes,  table  of  contents  and  index.  Undertaken 
by  legislative  authority  in  1836  and  since  added  to  from  time 
to  time  after  the  same  scheme. 

2.  Court  Reports,  Law  and  Equity,  of  South  Carolina. 

Not  knowrn  as  the  "Supreme  Court"  at  first.  The  court  was 
divided  into  a  law  court  and  an  equity  or  chancery  court,  the 
reports  of  each  being  published  separately. 

3.  Journals  of  the  General  Assembly  of  South  Carolina. 

The  Journals  from  1680  to  1782  are  fragmentary.  Some  have 
been  published  by  the  South  Carolina  Historical  Commission. 
The  manuscript  journals  are  complete  from  1782  to  1831. 
Since  1831  the  journals  have  been  officially  published  each  year 
soon  after  adjournment. 

4.  Messages  of  the  Governors  to  the   successive  General  Assemblies 

each  year  may  be  found  reprinted  in  almost  any  secular  news 
paper  of  the  year  and  many  can  be  found  only  in  newspapers. 


212  Appendix 

5.  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Legislature  on  the  Colored  Popu 

lation.     December  7,  1858. 

On  petition  of  the  mechanics  of  Charleston  to  the  Legislature 
to  prohibit  negroes  from  working  in  the  skilled  trades. 

6.  South    Carolina    General    Assembly    (House  of  Representatives), 

1857,  Report  of  the  Special  Committee  of  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  on  so  much  of  the  message  of  his  Excellency,  Gover 
nor  James  H.  Adams,  as  relates  to  Slavery  and  the  Slave  Trade. 
Columbia,  1857. 

Contains  also  the  minority  report  of  the  committee  recom 
mending  against  the  reopening. 

7.  Engrossed  Ordinances  of  the  Town  of  Camden,  1792-1908. 

Mostly  manuscript  compiled  after  1861. 

8.  City  Ordinances  of  Charleston,  1783-1832. 

Two  contemporary  compilations. 

9.  Report  of  Proceedings  City  Authorities  of  Charleston  for  year  end 

ing  September  1,  1837.     Robert  Y.  Hayne,  Mayor. 

10.  Report  containing  a  Review  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  City  Au 

thorities  of  Charleston,  for  the  year  ending  Septe mber  1, 1839. 
H.  L.  Pinckney,  Mayor. 

11.  Report  of  William  Porcher  Miles  on  Charleston  City  Affairs  for 

1857. 

12.  Kennedy  and  Parker:     An  Official  Report  of  the  Trials  of  Sundry 

Negroes  Charged  with  an  Attempt  to  Raise  an  Insurrection  in 
the  State  of  South  Carolina.  Charleston,  1822. 

Published  by  order  of  the  Negro  Court  itself,  it  gives  an  ac 
count  of  each  slave's  testimony,  all  evidence  and  sentence  in 
each  case,  also  a  summarized  list  of  those  punished. 

13.  United  States  Census  Reports,  1790-1860. 

14.  Congressional    Documents:     Reports    of    Committees,    No.   80; 

27th  Congress,  3rd  Session.  "Free  Colored  Seamen— Ma 
jority  and  Minority  Reports."  January  20,  1843. 

One  of  the  most  valuable  sources  of  facts  connected  with 
the  enforcement  of  the  seamen  acts  at  Charleston. 

(2)  County  Records — Manuscripts. 

Nine  counties,  representative  in  as  far  as  possible  of  every  section 
of  the  state,  were  visited,  where  any  of  the  criminal  records  of  the  county 
were  preserved,  for  an  investigation  as  to  how  the  laws  with  reference 
to  slaves  were  enforced. 


Appendix  213 

Many  of  the  county  records  fell  a  prey  to  the  vandalism  of  General 
Sherman's  army  in  1865.  In  others,  like  Marion  county,  the  housing 
room  being  inadequate,  the  criminal  records  were  destroyed,  in  the 
belief  that  they  could  serve  but  little  purpose  after  the  person  charged 
with  crime  had  died  or  been  executed. 

The  criminal  court  records  are  contained  in  a  minute-book  called 
the  Sessions  Journal  giving  a  list  of  all  cases,  jurors,  presentments  of 
grand  juries,  orders  of  the  court,  etc.  Often,  as  in  Sumter  and  Marl- 
borough,  the  original  papers,  indictments,  affidavits,  pardons,  etc.,  are 
carefully  preserved  and  indexed. 

Frequent  breaks  in  the  records  occur  owing  sometimes  to  removals 
to  new  court-houses  which  have  recently  been  erected. 

1.  Darlington  District  ("district"  now  known  as  "county"). 

The  criminal  court  records  go  back  to  1812  and  are  fairly 
complete  down  to  1860,  with  the  exception  of  a  break  from  1820 
to  1840.  The  book  containing  the  record  for  these  years  is  in 
a  crumbling  condition  from  exposure  in  a  damp  cellar. 

2.  Greenville  District. 

Journals  of  the  Session  Court  are  preserved  from  1817  to 
1860  with  a  break  from  1824  to  1836.  They  are  neat,  legible 
and  were  well  kept. 

3.  Kershaw  District.     (County  seat  at  Camden.) 

The  minutes  of  the  Criminal  Court  go  back  to  1789  and  are 
nearly  complete  down  to  1822,  when  a  break  occurs  extending 
to  1845.  The  remaining  records  to  1860  are  very  poor  and  un 
satisfactory;  no  attempt  at  accuracy  or  ordinary  care  was 
evidenced. 

4.  Marlborough  District. 

Sessions  Journal,  1846-1859,  neat  and  legible.  The  index, 
also  neatly  kept,  goes  back  to  1812,  giving  nature  of  offenses  and 
disposal  of  the  cases.  Nearly  all  of  the  criminal  papers  are 
preserved,  some  of  the  earliest  being  for  the  opening  years  of 
the  nineteenth  century. 

5.  Newberry  District. 

An  index  to  the  Sessions  Docket  of  criminal  cases  back  to 
1840  is  preserved.  The  Sessions  Journals  are  preserved  back 
only  to  1857. 

6.  Spartanburg  District. 

The  Sessions  Journals  are  preserved  from  1808-1860  with 
the  following  breaks:  1817-20;  1824-1830;  1835-50.  The 
criminal  papers  are  well  preserved.  The  index  gives  cases  as 
far  back  as  1800. 


214  Appendix 

7.  Sumter  District. 

Minutes  of  the  criminal  court,  sessions  docket  and  papers 
relative  to  criminal  cases  are  preserved  nearly  complete  from 
1827  to  1854.  The  criminal  papers  are  unusually  well  kept 
and  well  preserved. 

8.  Union  District. 

Sessions  Journals  preserved  from  1800  to  1860  with  breaks 
from  1811  to  1819  and  from  1831  to  1853.  The  index  begins 
with  1800.  The  criminal  papers  and  some  of  the  records  were 
not  available  in  the  summer  of  1912  (at  the  time  of  the  writer's 
visit)  owing  to  their  being  packed  for  removal  to  the  offices 
in  the  new  court-house. 

8.     Williamsburg  District. 

The  minutes  of  the  criminal  court  from  1817  to  1840  are  frag 
mentary  and  incomplete.  All  of  the  records  were  poorly  kept 
and  fail  often  to  show  how  cases  were  disposed  of.  All  of 
the  criminal  records  from  1840  to  1860  are  preserved. 

(c)  Newspapers. 

Many  of  the  newspapers  referred  to  below  were  in  scattered  collections 
of  files  for  only  one  or  two  years  or  even  less  while  some  of  them  are 
fairly  complete  and  for  longer  periods  of  time.  The  dates  do  not 
indicate  that  all  numbers  of  that  year  are  available  but  are  intended  to 
show  that  papers  covering  that  period  approximately  are  preserved 
nearly  complete.  The  best  collection  is  to  be  found  in  the  Charleston 
Library.  A  large  scattering  collection  may  be  seen  at  the  University 
of  South  Carolina  in  Columbia.  There  are  many  broken  files  at  points 
over  the  state  in  the  hands  of  individuals. 

(1)  Files  in  the  Charleston  Library. 

1.  South  Carolina  and  American  Gazette  (Charleston),  nearly  complete. 

1766-1780. 

2.  Royal  Gazette  (Charleston),  1781-82. 

3.  South  Carolina  Gazette  and  Country  Journal  (Charleston),  1766-75. 

4.  City  Gazette  and  Daily  Advertiser,  1789-1832  (Charleston). 

5.  Gazette  of  South  Carolina,  1783-1801,  almost  complete. 

6.  Columbian  Herald  (Charleston),  1785,  '86,    '95,  '96. 

7.  Morning  Post  (Charleston),  1786,  1787. 

8.  The  Times,   1800-1821. 

9.  Charleston  Courier,  1803-1860. 

10.  Weekly  Carolina  Gazette,  1810-1821. 

11.  Southern  Patriot,  1819-1840. 

12.  Charleston  Mercury,  1823-1860. 

13.  Evening  News,  1850-1856. 

14.  South  Carolina  Gazette,  1732-1779,  almost  complete. 


Appendix  215 

15.  Winyaw  Intelligencer,  1825,  1827,  1832. 

16.  Georgetown  Gazette,  1806-1807. 

(2)  Files  in  the    University  of  South  Carolina. 

1.  Camden  Journal  and  Southern  Whig,  1835. 

2.  Camden  Weekly  Journal,  1853. 

3.  Camden  Journal,  1827,    1828,  1835,  1837,  1840,  1841,  1842,    1850. 

4.  Camden  Commercial  Courier,  1837,  1841. 

5.  Columbia  Telescope  (five  numbers),  1838. 

6.  Tri- Weekly  (Columbia),  scattering,  1851. 

7.  Daily  Carolinian  (Columbia),  scattering,  1851-1853. 

8.  The  Daily  Telegraph  (Columbia),  1847,  1848,  1851. 

9.  Carolina  Planter,  1840. 

10.  The  Farmer  and  Planter,  1855-1861. 

11.  The  Black  River  Watchman  (Sumter),  1850. 

12.  Sumter  Watchman,  1855-1856. 

13.  Sumter  Banner,  1854-1855. 

14.  Pendleton  Messenger,   1826-1848. 

15.  Keowee  Courier,  1857-1858. 

(3)  Private  Collections. 

This  list  includes  only  files  to  which  the  writer  had  access.  Several 
other  more  or  less  important  files,  in  the  hands  of  persons  who  kindly 
offered  their  use,  but  of  which  lack  of  time  forbade  perusal,  could  be  men 
tioned. 

1.  Southern  Times  and  State  Gazette  (Columbia),  1835-1837. 

2.  The  Southern  Chronicle  (Columbia),  1840,  1841,  1847,  1848. 

3.  Columbia  Free  Press  and  Hive,  1831. 

4.  Abbeville  Banner  (scattering),  1846-1848,  1852-1860. 

5.  The  Independent  Press  (Abbeville),  1854-1856. 

6.  The  Rising  Sun  (Newberry),  1858,  1859,  1860. 


216  Appendix 


BIOGRAPHICAL 

The  writer  was  born  in  Newberry  County,  South  Caro 
lina,  in  1879.  He  was  graduated  with  the  degree  of 
Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1898  from  Newberry  College.  Fol 
lowing  graduation  he  taught  in  the  public  schools  of  his 
native  state  for  six  years.  The  years  1907-8  and  1908-9 
he  spent  as  a  scholastic  fellow  at  Vanderbilt  University, 
Nashville,  Tennessee,  pursuing  graduate  courses  in  History, 
Economics  and  English,  and  received  the  degree  of  Master 
of  Arts  in  1908.  During  the  period  1909-1913  he  was  in 
structor  in  History  at  Vanderbilt,  meantime  securing  data 
for  this  dissertation  and  pursuing  further  courses  in  His 
tory.  In  1913  he  received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Phi 
losophy  from  Vanderbilt  University.  At  present  (October, 
1914)  he  is  Professor  of  History  and  Economics  in  Emory 
and  Henry  College,  Emory,  Virginia. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


?  23 1998 


12,000(11/95) 


YC  59474 


" 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


